Cargando…

The impact of targeting repetitive BamHI-W sequences on the sensitivity and precision of EBV DNA quantification

BACKGROUND: Viral load monitoring and early Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA detection are essential in routine laboratory testing, especially in preemptive management of Post-transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder. Targeting the repetitive BamHI-W sequence was shown to increase the sensitivity of EBV...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanosyan, Armen, Fayd’herbe de Maudave, Alexis, Bollore, Karine, Zimmermann, Valérie, Foulongne, Vincent, Van de Perre, Philippe, Tuaillon, Edouard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28850597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183856
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Viral load monitoring and early Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA detection are essential in routine laboratory testing, especially in preemptive management of Post-transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder. Targeting the repetitive BamHI-W sequence was shown to increase the sensitivity of EBV DNA quantification, but the variability of BamHI-W reiterations was suggested to be a source of quantification bias. We aimed to assess the extent of variability associated with BamHI-W PCR and its impact on the sensitivity of EBV DNA quantification using the 1st WHO international standard, EBV strains and clinical samples. METHODS: Repetitive BamHI-W- and LMP2 single- sequences were amplified by in-house qPCRs and BXLF-1 sequence by a commercial assay (EBV R-gene™, BioMerieux). Linearity and limits of detection of in-house methods were assessed. The impact of repeated versus single target sequences on EBV DNA quantification precision was tested on B95.8 and Raji cell lines, possessing 11 and 7 copies of the BamHI-W sequence, respectively, and on clinical samples. RESULTS: BamHI-W qPCR demonstrated a lower limit of detection compared to LMP2 qPCR (2.33 log(10) versus 3.08 log(10) IU/mL; P = 0.0002). BamHI-W qPCR underestimated the EBV DNA load on Raji strain which contained fewer BamHI-W copies than the WHO standard derived from the B95.8 EBV strain (mean bias: - 0.21 log(10); 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.12). Comparison of BamHI-W qPCR versus LMP2 and BXLF-1 qPCR showed an acceptable variability between EBV DNA levels in clinical samples with the mean bias being within 0.5 log(10) IU/mL EBV DNA, whereas a better quantitative concordance was observed between LMP2 and BXLF-1 assays. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting BamHI-W resulted to a higher sensitivity compared to LMP2 but the variable reiterations of BamHI-W segment are associated with higher quantification variability. BamHI-W can be considered for clinical and therapeutic monitoring to detect an early EBV DNA and a dynamic change in viral load.