Cargando…
Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections
BACKGROUND: Timely identification of respiratory virus infection is essential to mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use and to implement appropriate treatment and/or infection control procedures. As such, multiplexed PCR assays have become standard in many virology laboratories. OBJECTIVES: To compar...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier B.V.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7119489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28633962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.06.006 |
_version_ | 1783514776117182464 |
---|---|
author | Radko, Sandi Ian Stuart, J. Zahariadis, George |
author_facet | Radko, Sandi Ian Stuart, J. Zahariadis, George |
author_sort | Radko, Sandi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Timely identification of respiratory virus infection is essential to mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use and to implement appropriate treatment and/or infection control procedures. As such, multiplexed PCR assays have become standard in many virology laboratories. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Seeplex RV15 (test of record) with two newer generation multiplex assays, the Anyplex II RV16 and the xTAG respiratory virus panels. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred and three retrospective and 36 prospective respiratory samples were tested by all three assays. Samples were deemed to be positive if they tested positive for a virus by at least two of the three respective assays. Negative samples also had to test negative by at least two of the three assays. Inconclusive samples were those that showed band signal intensity between 0 and 100 on the RV15, but had not been previously tested on the RV16 or xTAG. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivity and specificity of all three assays were similar (∼85% and 100%, respectively). Given each assay can identify multiple different viruses, the targets reported by one assay did not always agree with each target from another assay. Partial discordant rates were 47% and 21% for positive and negative samples, respectively. These higher than expected partial discordant rates may be due to primer or chemistry differences amongst the three multiplex assays. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7119489 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71194892020-04-08 Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections Radko, Sandi Ian Stuart, J. Zahariadis, George J Virol Methods Article BACKGROUND: Timely identification of respiratory virus infection is essential to mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use and to implement appropriate treatment and/or infection control procedures. As such, multiplexed PCR assays have become standard in many virology laboratories. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Seeplex RV15 (test of record) with two newer generation multiplex assays, the Anyplex II RV16 and the xTAG respiratory virus panels. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred and three retrospective and 36 prospective respiratory samples were tested by all three assays. Samples were deemed to be positive if they tested positive for a virus by at least two of the three respective assays. Negative samples also had to test negative by at least two of the three assays. Inconclusive samples were those that showed band signal intensity between 0 and 100 on the RV15, but had not been previously tested on the RV16 or xTAG. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivity and specificity of all three assays were similar (∼85% and 100%, respectively). Given each assay can identify multiple different viruses, the targets reported by one assay did not always agree with each target from another assay. Partial discordant rates were 47% and 21% for positive and negative samples, respectively. These higher than expected partial discordant rates may be due to primer or chemistry differences amongst the three multiplex assays. Elsevier B.V. 2017-10 2017-06-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7119489/ /pubmed/28633962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.06.006 Text en © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Radko, Sandi Ian Stuart, J. Zahariadis, George Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
title | Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
title_full | Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
title_short | Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
title_sort | evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7119489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28633962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.06.006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT radkosandi evaluationofthreecommercialmultiplexassaysforthedetectionofrespiratoryviralinfections AT ianstuartj evaluationofthreecommercialmultiplexassaysforthedetectionofrespiratoryviralinfections AT zahariadisgeorge evaluationofthreecommercialmultiplexassaysforthedetectionofrespiratoryviralinfections |