Cargando…
Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens
BACKGROUND: eMAG™ (bioMerieux) is a new nucleic acid extraction platform based on magnetic silica technology, like its predecessor, NucliSENS(®) easyMAG(®) (bioMerieux). Using the same reagents and disposables, eMAG™ adds further automation, allowing simultaneous extraction of 48 samples directly fr...
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/PMC7185493/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28160729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2017.01.004 |
_version_ | 1783526768089497600 |
---|---|
author | Garcia, Magali Chessa, Céline Bourgoin, Anne Giraudeau, Geneviève Plouzeau, Chloé Agius, Gérard Lévêque, Nicolas Beby-Defaux, Agnès |
author_facet | Garcia, Magali Chessa, Céline Bourgoin, Anne Giraudeau, Geneviève Plouzeau, Chloé Agius, Gérard Lévêque, Nicolas Beby-Defaux, Agnès |
author_sort | Garcia, Magali |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: eMAG™ (bioMerieux) is a new nucleic acid extraction platform based on magnetic silica technology, like its predecessor, NucliSENS(®) easyMAG(®) (bioMerieux). Using the same reagents and disposables, eMAG™ adds further automation, allowing simultaneous extraction of 48 samples directly from primary tubes, and distribution of nucleic acid extracts on PCR strips or in tubes at the end of the extraction process. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of eMAG™ and easyMAG(®) on various clinical specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Respiratory (n = 199), whole blood (n = 50), plasma (n = 25) and urine (n = 25) specimens were extracted in parallel on both platforms. Both qualitative (respiratory virus, cell control, CMV, EBV, HHV6 and BKV detection) and quantitative (respiratory virus and cell control cycle thresolds, and CMV, EBV, HHV6 and BKV viral loads) results were compared. RESULTS: Detection of qualitative targets showed good agreement, ranging from 84.6% for whole blood to 95.9% for respiratory specimens. Correlations between quantitative results were good, with R(2) ranging from 0.802 to 0.995. Quantitative results showed average overall differences below 0.10 log(10) copies/mL between eMAG™ and easyMAG(®). CONCLUSIONS: The two platforms showed comparable performance on the types of clinical specimen tested. With higher automation and throughput than easyMAG(®), the eMAG™ platform is likely to be advantageous for laboratories performing a large number of molecular analyses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7185493 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71854932020-04-28 Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens Garcia, Magali Chessa, Céline Bourgoin, Anne Giraudeau, Geneviève Plouzeau, Chloé Agius, Gérard Lévêque, Nicolas Beby-Defaux, Agnès J Clin Virol Article BACKGROUND: eMAG™ (bioMerieux) is a new nucleic acid extraction platform based on magnetic silica technology, like its predecessor, NucliSENS(®) easyMAG(®) (bioMerieux). Using the same reagents and disposables, eMAG™ adds further automation, allowing simultaneous extraction of 48 samples directly from primary tubes, and distribution of nucleic acid extracts on PCR strips or in tubes at the end of the extraction process. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of eMAG™ and easyMAG(®) on various clinical specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Respiratory (n = 199), whole blood (n = 50), plasma (n = 25) and urine (n = 25) specimens were extracted in parallel on both platforms. Both qualitative (respiratory virus, cell control, CMV, EBV, HHV6 and BKV detection) and quantitative (respiratory virus and cell control cycle thresolds, and CMV, EBV, HHV6 and BKV viral loads) results were compared. RESULTS: Detection of qualitative targets showed good agreement, ranging from 84.6% for whole blood to 95.9% for respiratory specimens. Correlations between quantitative results were good, with R(2) ranging from 0.802 to 0.995. Quantitative results showed average overall differences below 0.10 log(10) copies/mL between eMAG™ and easyMAG(®). CONCLUSIONS: The two platforms showed comparable performance on the types of clinical specimen tested. With higher automation and throughput than easyMAG(®), the eMAG™ platform is likely to be advantageous for laboratories performing a large number of molecular analyses. Elsevier B.V. 2017-03 2017-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7185493/ /pubmed/28160729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2017.01.004 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 Garcia, Magali Chessa, Céline Bourgoin, Anne Giraudeau, Geneviève Plouzeau, Chloé Agius, Gérard Lévêque, Nicolas Beby-Defaux, Agnès Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens |
title | Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens |
title_full | Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens |
title_fullStr | Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens |
title_short | Comparison of eMAG™ versus NucliSENS(®) EasyMAG(®) performance on clinical specimens |
title_sort | comparison of emag™ versus nuclisens(®) easymag(®) performance on clinical specimens |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185493/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28160729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2017.01.004 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garciamagali comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT chessaceline comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT bourgoinanne comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT giraudeaugenevieve comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT plouzeauchloe comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT agiusgerard comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT levequenicolas comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens AT bebydefauxagnes comparisonofemagversusnuclisenseasymagperformanceonclinicalspecimens |