van der Meide Wendy, Guerra Jorge, Schoone Gerard, Farenhorst Marit, Coelho Leíla, Faber William, Peekel Inge, Schallig Henk
KIT Biomedical Research, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Jan;46(1):73-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01416-07. Epub 2007 Oct 24.
DNA or RNA amplification methods for detection of Leishmania parasites have advantages regarding sensitivity and potential quantitative characteristics in comparison with conventional diagnostic methods but are often still not routinely applied. However, the use and application of molecular assays are increasing, but comparative studies on the performance of these different assays are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare three molecular assays for detection and quantification of Leishmania parasites in serial dilutions of parasites and in skin biopsies collected from cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) patients in Manaus, Brazil. A serial dilution of promastigotes spiked in blood was tested in triplicate in three different runs by quantitative nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (QT-NASBA), quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR), and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). In addition, the costs, durations, and numbers of handling steps were compared, and 84 skin biopsies from patients with suspected CL were tested. Both QT-NASBA and qRT-PCR had a detection limit of 100 parasites/ml of blood, while qPCR detected 1,000 parasites/ml. QT-NASBA had the lowest range of intra-assay variation (coefficients of variation [CV], 0.5% to 3.3%), while qPCR had the lowest range of interassay variation (CV, 0.4% to 5.3%). Furthermore, qRT-PCR had higher r2 values and amplification efficiencies than qPCR, and qPCR and qRT-PCR had faster procedures than QT-NASBA. All assays performed equally well with patient samples, with significant correlations between parasite counts. Overall, qRT-PCR is preferred over QT-NASBA and qPCR as the most optimal diagnostic assay for quantification of Leishmania parasites, since it was highly sensitive and reproducible and the procedure was relatively fast.
与传统诊断方法相比,用于检测利什曼原虫寄生虫的DNA或RNA扩增方法在灵敏度和潜在定量特性方面具有优势,但通常仍未常规应用。然而,分子检测的使用和应用正在增加,但缺乏对这些不同检测方法性能的比较研究。本研究的目的是比较三种分子检测方法,用于检测和定量巴西玛瑙斯皮肤利什曼病(CL)患者的寄生虫系列稀释液和皮肤活检组织中的利什曼原虫寄生虫。通过基于核酸序列的定量扩增(QT-NASBA)、定量实时逆转录酶PCR(qRT-PCR)和定量实时PCR(qPCR),对添加到血液中的前鞭毛体系列稀释液进行了三次重复测试,共进行了三次不同的实验。此外,还比较了成本、持续时间和操作步骤数量,并对84例疑似CL患者的皮肤活检组织进行了检测。QT-NASBA和qRT-PCR的检测限均为每毫升血液100个寄生虫,而qPCR检测到每毫升血液1000个寄生虫。QT-NASBA的实验室内变异范围最低(变异系数[CV],0.5%至3.3%),而qPCR的实验间变异范围最低(CV,0.4%至5.3%)。此外,qRT-PCR的r2值和扩增效率高于qPCR,且qPCR和qRT-PCR的操作程序比QT-NASBA更快。所有检测方法对患者样本的检测效果相同,寄生虫计数之间存在显著相关性。总体而言,qRT-PCR作为定量利什曼原虫寄生虫的最佳诊断检测方法,优于QT-NASBA和qPCR,因为它高度灵敏且可重复,且操作程序相对较快。