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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garcia, Magali, Chessa, Céline, Bourgoin, Anne, Giraudeau, Geneviève, Plouzeau, Chloé, Agius, Gérard, Lévêque, Nicolas, Beby-Defaux, Agnès
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