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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amrud, Kelly, Slinger, Robert, Sant, Nadia, Desjardins, Marc, Toye, Baldwin
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