Suppr超能文献

两种用于检测呼吸道病毒感染的多重PCR检测方法的比较。

Comparison of two multiplex PCR assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections.

作者信息

Kim Hanah, Hur Mina, Moon Hee-Won, Yun Yeo-Min, Cho Hyun Chan

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Clin Respir J. 2014 Oct;8(4):391-6. doi: 10.1111/crj.12083. Epub 2014 Jan 10.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Respiratory viruses are the main causes of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases. Rapid and accurate detection of respiratory viruses is crucial for appropriate patient treatment and prevention of endemic spread.

OBJECTIVES

We compared two multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the detection of respiratory viral pathogens.

METHODS

A total of 245 respiratory specimens (229 sputum samples, 14 bronchoalveolar lavage samples, 6 nasal swabs, 3 throat swabs, 7 unknown) were analyzed using two multiplex assays: One-step RV real-time PCR (BioSewoom, Seoul, Korea) and Seeplex RV 12 Detection kit (Seegene, Seoul, Korea). The results were further confirmed using sequencing as a reference.

RESULTS

Among 245 samples (265 identifications including co-infections), the identification of respiratory viruses was 44.9% (119/265), 44.2% (117/265) and 45.3% (120/265) by One-step RV assay, Seeplex RV assay and sequencing, respectively. The concordance rate between One-step RV assay and sequencing was 95.5% (253/265), and that between Seeplex RV assay and sequencing was 89.8% (238/265) (P = 0.0189). The sensitivities of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were 94.1% [95% confidential interval (CI), 88.3%-97.6%] and 83.3% (95% CI, 75.4%-89.5%), respectively (P = 0.0002). The specificities of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were 96.6% (95% CI, 92.2%-98.9%) and 95.2% (95% CI, 90.3%-98.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although the performances of One-step RV and Seeplex RV assays were overall comparable, One-step RV assay showed better sensitivity and concordance with sequencing. One-step RV assay can be a useful option for respiratory virus testing in clinical laboratories.

摘要

引言

呼吸道病毒是上、下呼吸道疾病的主要病因。快速准确地检测呼吸道病毒对于患者的恰当治疗和预防地方性传播至关重要。

目的

我们比较了两种用于检测呼吸道病毒病原体的多重聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测方法。

方法

使用两种多重检测方法对总共245份呼吸道标本(229份痰标本、14份支气管肺泡灌洗标本、6份鼻拭子、3份咽拭子、7份不明标本)进行分析:一步法呼吸道病毒实时PCR(韩国首尔BioSewoom公司)和Seeplex RV 12检测试剂盒(韩国首尔Seegene公司)。结果以测序作为参考进一步确认。

结果

在245份标本(包括合并感染共265次鉴定)中,一步法呼吸道病毒检测、Seeplex RV检测和测序对呼吸道病毒的鉴定率分别为44.9%(119/265)、44.2%(117/265)和45.3%(120/265)。一步法呼吸道病毒检测与测序之间的一致性率为95.5%(253/265),Seeplex RV检测与测序之间的一致性率为89.8%(238/265)(P = 0.0189)。一步法呼吸道病毒检测和Seeplex RV检测的灵敏度分别为94.1%[95%置信区间(CI),88.3%-97.6%]和83.3%(95%CI,75.4%-89.5%)(P = 0.0002)。一步法呼吸道病毒检测和Seeplex RV检测的特异性分别为

相似文献

1
Comparison of two multiplex PCR assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections.
Clin Respir J. 2014 Oct;8(4):391-6. doi: 10.1111/crj.12083. Epub 2014 Jan 10.
2
Comparison of Anyplex II RV16 with the xTAG respiratory viral panel and Seeplex RV15 for detection of respiratory viruses.
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Apr;51(4):1137-41. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02958-12. Epub 2013 Jan 30.
3
Comparison of the AdvanSure™ real-time RT-PCR and Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE assay for the detection of respiratory viruses.
J Virol Methods. 2015 Nov;224:42-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Aug 13.
5
Comparison of the Anyplex(TM) II RV16 and Seeplex(®) RV12 ACE assays for the detection of respiratory viruses.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;79(4):419-21. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.01.025. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
6
Evaluation of three commercial multiplex assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections.
J Virol Methods. 2017 Oct;248:39-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.06.006. Epub 2017 Jun 17.
7
Evaluation of the AdvanSure™ real-time RT-PCR compared with culture and Seeplex RV15 for simultaneous detection of respiratory viruses.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 May;79(1):14-8. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.01.016. Epub 2014 Jan 30.

引用本文的文献

3
Detection of 12 respiratory viruses by duplex real time PCR assays in respiratory samples.
Mol Cell Probes. 2015 Dec;29(6):408-413. doi: 10.1016/j.mcp.2015.08.006. Epub 2015 Aug 31.
5
Detection of respiratory viruses in sputum from adults by use of automated multiplex PCR.
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Oct;52(10):3590-6. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01523-14. Epub 2014 Jul 23.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparative evaluation of six commercialized multiplex PCR kits for the diagnosis of respiratory infections.
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 23;8(8):e72174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072174. eCollection 2013.
3
Comparison of Anyplex II RV16 with the xTAG respiratory viral panel and Seeplex RV15 for detection of respiratory viruses.
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Apr;51(4):1137-41. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02958-12. Epub 2013 Jan 30.
4
High rates of detection of respiratory viruses in the nasal washes and mucosae of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Mar;51(3):979-84. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02806-12. Epub 2013 Jan 16.
5
Molecular diagnosis of respiratory virus infections.
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2011 Sep-Dec;48(5-6):217-49. doi: 10.3109/10408363.2011.640976.
6
Diagnostic capacity of rapid influenza antigen test: reappraisal with experience from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.
J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2012 Apr;45(2):102-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2011.09.027. Epub 2011 Dec 16.
7
Comparison of the Idaho Technology FilmArray system to real-time PCR for detection of respiratory pathogens in children.
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Feb;50(2):364-71. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05996-11. Epub 2011 Nov 23.
8
Clinical evaluation of multiplex real-time PCR panels for rapid detection of respiratory viral infections.
J Med Virol. 2012 Jan;84(1):162-9. doi: 10.1002/jmv.22186. Epub 2011 Nov 3.
9
Evaluation of multiple commercial molecular and conventional diagnostic assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in children.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Dec;17(12):1900-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03529.x. Epub 2011 Jun 24.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验