Suppr超能文献

用于检测肠道寄生虫、属和属的商业单重和多重PCR检测方法:七种商业PCR试剂盒与常规内部单重PCR检测方法的比较评估

Commercial Simplex and Multiplex PCR Assays for the Detection of Intestinal Parasites , spp., and spp.: Comparative Evaluation of Seven Commercial PCR Kits with Routine In-House Simplex PCR Assays.

作者信息

Basmaciyan Louise, François Alexandre, Vincent Anne, Valot Stéphane, Bonnin Alain, Costa Damien, Razakandrainibe Romy, Morio Florent, Favennec Loic, Dalle Frédéric

机构信息

Department of Parasitology/Mycology, University Hospital of Dijon, 21000 Dijon, France.

CNR LE Cryptosporidiosis Collaborating Laboratory, Santé Publique France, 21000 Dijon, France.

出版信息

Microorganisms. 2021 Nov 10;9(11):2325. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9112325.

Abstract

Nowadays, many commercial kits allowing the detection of digestive parasites by DNA amplification methods have been developed, including simplex PCR assays (SimpPCRa) allowing the identification of a single parasite, and multiplex PCR assays (MultPCRa) allowing the identification of several parasites at once. Thus, aimed at improving the diagnosis of intestinal protozoal infections, it is essential to evaluate the performances of these new tools. A total of 174 DNA samples collected between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively included in this study. Performances of four commercial SimpPCRa (i.e., CerTest-VIASURE) and three MultPCRa (i.e., CerTest-VIASURE, FAST-TRACK-Diagnostics-FTD-Stool-Parasite and DIAGENODE-Gastroenteritis/Parasite-panel-I) were evaluated for the detection of spp., spp., and in stool samples compared to our routinely used in-house SimpPCRa. Globally, the SimpPCRa showed better sensitivity/specificity for the detection of , , and spp. (i.e., 96.9/93.6%; 100/100%; 95.5/100%; and 100/99.3%, respectively), compared to the three commercial MultPCRa tested. All in all, we showed that MultPCRa offer an interesting alternative for the detection of protozoans in stool samples depending on the clinical context.

摘要

如今,已经开发出许多通过DNA扩增方法检测消化寄生虫的商业试剂盒,包括可鉴定单一寄生虫的单重PCR检测法(SimpPCRa),以及可同时鉴定多种寄生虫的多重PCR检测法(MultPCRa)。因此,为了改善肠道原生动物感染的诊断,评估这些新工具的性能至关重要。本研究回顾性纳入了2007年至2017年间收集的174份DNA样本。与我们常规使用的内部单重PCR检测法相比,评估了四种商业单重PCR检测法(即CerTest-VIASURE)和三种多重PCR检测法(即CerTest-VIASURE、FAST-TRACK-Diagnostics-FTD-Stool-Parasite和DIAGENODE-Gastroenteritis/Parasite-panel-I)对粪便样本中 属、 属和 属的检测性能。总体而言,与测试的三种商业多重PCR检测法相比,单重PCR检测法对 属、 属、 属和 属的检测显示出更好的敏感性/特异性(即分别为96.9/93.6%、100/100%、95.5/100%和100/99.3%)。总而言之,我们表明,根据临床情况,多重PCR检测法为粪便样本中原生动物的检测提供了一种有趣的替代方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c813/8623296/df1a1c8cec11/microorganisms-09-02325-g001.jpg

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