Cargando…
A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents
OBJECTIVE: Molecular methods to detect diarrheal pathogens are increasingly being used in place of conventional methods. We compared a new multiplex real-time PCR assay for detection of both bacterial and viral gastroenteritis agents, the Allplex™ Gastrointestinal Panel Assays (AGPA), to conventiona...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6064067/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30055653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3645-6 |
_version_ | 1783342656541163520 |
---|---|
author | Amrud, Kelly Slinger, Robert Sant, Nadia Desjardins, Marc Toye, Baldwin |
author_facet | Amrud, Kelly Slinger, Robert Sant, Nadia Desjardins, Marc Toye, Baldwin |
author_sort | Amrud, Kelly |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Molecular methods to detect diarrheal pathogens are increasingly being used in place of conventional methods. We compared a new multiplex real-time PCR assay for detection of both bacterial and viral gastroenteritis agents, the Allplex™ Gastrointestinal Panel Assays (AGPA), to conventional methods (stool culture for bacterial pathogens and electron microscopy (EM) for viral pathogens). RESULTS: Gastrointestinal viruses, in particular norovirus genogroup II viruses, were detected by the AGPA in a high number of specimens that were negative by EM. For bacterial pathogens, the AGPA was able to detect the organisms grown in culture with high sensitivity and additionally detected several types of E. coli, such as enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), that could not be detected with conventional culture methods. Overall, the AGPA had a > 2-fold higher detection rate than the conventional methods, with 24/135 (17.8%) samples positive by conventional methods and 60/135 (44.4%) by AGPA. Thus, diarrhea pathogen detection rates increased substantially with the use of the AGPA as compared to conventional methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6064067 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60640672018-07-31 A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents Amrud, Kelly Slinger, Robert Sant, Nadia Desjardins, Marc Toye, Baldwin BMC Res Notes Research Note OBJECTIVE: Molecular methods to detect diarrheal pathogens are increasingly being used in place of conventional methods. We compared a new multiplex real-time PCR assay for detection of both bacterial and viral gastroenteritis agents, the Allplex™ Gastrointestinal Panel Assays (AGPA), to conventional methods (stool culture for bacterial pathogens and electron microscopy (EM) for viral pathogens). RESULTS: Gastrointestinal viruses, in particular norovirus genogroup II viruses, were detected by the AGPA in a high number of specimens that were negative by EM. For bacterial pathogens, the AGPA was able to detect the organisms grown in culture with high sensitivity and additionally detected several types of E. coli, such as enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), that could not be detected with conventional culture methods. Overall, the AGPA had a > 2-fold higher detection rate than the conventional methods, with 24/135 (17.8%) samples positive by conventional methods and 60/135 (44.4%) by AGPA. Thus, diarrhea pathogen detection rates increased substantially with the use of the AGPA as compared to conventional methods. BioMed Central 2018-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6064067/ /pubmed/30055653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3645-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Note Amrud, Kelly Slinger, Robert Sant, Nadia Desjardins, Marc Toye, Baldwin A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
title | A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
title_full | A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
title_fullStr | A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
title_short | A comparison of the Allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
title_sort | comparison of the allplex™ bacterial and viral assays to conventional methods for detection of gastroenteritis agents |
topic | Research Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6064067/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30055653 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3645-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT amrudkelly acomparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT slingerrobert acomparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT santnadia acomparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT desjardinsmarc acomparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT toyebaldwin acomparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT amrudkelly comparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT slingerrobert comparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT santnadia comparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT desjardinsmarc comparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents AT toyebaldwin comparisonoftheallplexbacterialandviralassaystoconventionalmethodsfordetectionofgastroenteritisagents |