Microbiology Service, Hospital Clínico Universitario, and Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Av. Blasco Ibáñez 17, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Aug;49(8):2899-904. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00785-11. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
Limited data are available on the performance of different automated extraction platforms and commercially available quantitative real-time PCR (QRT-PCR) methods for the quantitation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA in plasma. We compared the performance characteristics of the Abbott mSample preparation system DNA kit on the m24 SP instrument (Abbott), the High Pure viral nucleic acid kit on the COBAS AmpliPrep system (Roche), and the EZ1 Virus 2.0 kit on the BioRobot EZ1 extraction platform (Qiagen) coupled with the Abbott CMV PCR kit, the LightCycler CMV Quant kit (Roche), and the Q-CMV complete kit (Nanogen), for both plasma specimens from allogeneic stem cell transplant (Allo-SCT) recipients (n = 42) and the OptiQuant CMV DNA panel (AcroMetrix). The EZ1 system displayed the highest extraction efficiency over a wide range of CMV plasma DNA loads, followed by the m24 and the AmpliPrep methods. The Nanogen PCR assay yielded higher mean CMV plasma DNA values than the Abbott and the Roche PCR assays, regardless of the platform used for DNA extraction. Overall, the effects of the extraction method and the QRT-PCR used on CMV plasma DNA load measurements were less pronounced for specimens with high CMV DNA content (>10,000 copies/ml). The performance characteristics of the extraction methods and QRT-PCR assays evaluated herein for clinical samples were extensible at cell-based standards from AcroMetrix. In conclusion, different automated systems are not equally efficient for CMV DNA extraction from plasma specimens, and the plasma CMV DNA loads measured by commercially available QRT-PCRs can differ significantly. The above findings should be taken into consideration for the establishment of cutoff values for the initiation or cessation of preemptive antiviral therapies and for the interpretation of data from clinical studies in the Allo-SCT setting.
有关不同自动化提取平台和市售定量实时 PCR(QRT-PCR)方法在血浆中定量检测巨细胞病毒(CMV)DNA 的性能,目前仅有有限的数据。我们比较了 Abbott mSample 制备系统 DNA 试剂盒在 m24 SP 仪器(Abbott)上、High Pure 病毒核酸试剂盒在 COBAS AmpliPrep 系统(Roche)上和 EZ1 Virus 2.0 试剂盒在 BioRobot EZ1 提取平台(Qiagen)上的性能特点,这些方法均与 Abbott CMV PCR 试剂盒、LightCycler CMV Quant 试剂盒(Roche)和 Q-CMV complete 试剂盒(Nanogen)配套使用,用于检测异基因造血干细胞移植(Allo-SCT)受者的血浆标本(n = 42)和 OptiQuant CMV DNA 面板(AcroMetrix)。在广泛的 CMV 血浆 DNA 负荷范围内,EZ1 系统显示出最高的提取效率,其次是 m24 和 AmpliPrep 方法。无论用于 DNA 提取的平台如何,Nanogen PCR 检测法都产生了比 Abbott 和 Roche PCR 检测法更高的平均 CMV 血浆 DNA 值。总体而言,对于高 CMV DNA 含量(>10,000 拷贝/ml)的标本,提取方法和 QRT-PCR 对 CMV 血浆 DNA 负荷测量的影响不太明显。本文评估的提取方法和 QRT-PCR 检测法的性能特征可在 AcroMetrix 的基于细胞的标准上扩展。总之,不同的自动化系统在从血浆标本中提取 CMV DNA 方面效率并不相同,并且市售 QRT-PCR 法测量的血浆 CMV DNA 负荷可能有很大差异。在制定抢先抗病毒治疗的启动或停止的临界值以及解释 Allo-SCT 背景下的临床研究数据时,应考虑到上述发现。