Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Molecular polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based assays are increasingly used to diagnose viral respiratory infections and conduct epidemiology studies. Molecular assays have generally been evaluated by comparing them to conventional...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Miller E Kathryn, Griffin Marie R, Edwards Kathryn M, Hartert Tina V, Gern James E, Ali S, Gebretsadik Tebeb, Pappas Tressa, Lee Wai- ming, Williams John V
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-06-01
Series:Virology Journal
Online Access:http://www.virologyj.com/content/8/1/332
id doaj-6454407b919b4a258e634071c5416d0d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6454407b919b4a258e634071c5416d0d2020-11-24T23:57:15ZengBMCVirology Journal1743-422X2011-06-018133210.1186/1743-422X-8-332Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory virusesMiller E KathrynGriffin Marie REdwards Kathryn MHartert Tina VGern James EAli SGebretsadik TebebPappas TressaLee Wai- mingWilliams John V<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Molecular polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based assays are increasingly used to diagnose viral respiratory infections and conduct epidemiology studies. Molecular assays have generally been evaluated by comparing them to conventional direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) or viral culture techniques, with few published direct comparisons between molecular methods or between institutions. We sought to perform a real-world comparison of two molecular respiratory viral diagnostic methods between two experienced respiratory virus research laboratories.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We tested nasal and throat swab specimens obtained from 225 infants with respiratory illness for 11 common respiratory viruses using both a multiplex assay (Respiratory MultiCode-PLx Assay [RMA]) and individual real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both assays detected viruses in more than 70% of specimens, but there was discordance. The RMA assay detected significantly more human metapneumovirus (HMPV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), while RT-rtPCR detected significantly more influenza A. We speculated that primer differences accounted for these discrepancies and redesigned the primers and probes for influenza A in the RMA assay, and for HMPV and RSV in the RT-rtPCR assay. The tests were then repeated and again compared. The new primers led to improved detection of HMPV and RSV by RT-rtPCR assay, but the RMA assay remained similar in terms of influenza detection.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Given the absence of a gold standard, clinical and research laboratories should regularly correlate the results of molecular assays with other PCR based assays, other laboratories, and with standard virologic methods to ensure consistency and accuracy.</p> http://www.virologyj.com/content/8/1/332
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Miller E Kathryn
Griffin Marie R
Edwards Kathryn M
Hartert Tina V
Gern James E
Ali S
Gebretsadik Tebeb
Pappas Tressa
Lee Wai- ming
Williams John V
spellingShingle Miller E Kathryn
Griffin Marie R
Edwards Kathryn M
Hartert Tina V
Gern James E
Ali S
Gebretsadik Tebeb
Pappas Tressa
Lee Wai- ming
Williams John V
Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
Virology Journal
author_facet Miller E Kathryn
Griffin Marie R
Edwards Kathryn M
Hartert Tina V
Gern James E
Ali S
Gebretsadik Tebeb
Pappas Tressa
Lee Wai- ming
Williams John V
author_sort Miller E Kathryn
title Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
title_short Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
title_full Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
title_fullStr Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
title_full_unstemmed Real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
title_sort real-world comparison of two molecular methods for detection of respiratory viruses
publisher BMC
series Virology Journal
issn 1743-422X
publishDate 2011-06-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Molecular polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based assays are increasingly used to diagnose viral respiratory infections and conduct epidemiology studies. Molecular assays have generally been evaluated by comparing them to conventional direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) or viral culture techniques, with few published direct comparisons between molecular methods or between institutions. We sought to perform a real-world comparison of two molecular respiratory viral diagnostic methods between two experienced respiratory virus research laboratories.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We tested nasal and throat swab specimens obtained from 225 infants with respiratory illness for 11 common respiratory viruses using both a multiplex assay (Respiratory MultiCode-PLx Assay [RMA]) and individual real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both assays detected viruses in more than 70% of specimens, but there was discordance. The RMA assay detected significantly more human metapneumovirus (HMPV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), while RT-rtPCR detected significantly more influenza A. We speculated that primer differences accounted for these discrepancies and redesigned the primers and probes for influenza A in the RMA assay, and for HMPV and RSV in the RT-rtPCR assay. The tests were then repeated and again compared. The new primers led to improved detection of HMPV and RSV by RT-rtPCR assay, but the RMA assay remained similar in terms of influenza detection.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Given the absence of a gold standard, clinical and research laboratories should regularly correlate the results of molecular assays with other PCR based assays, other laboratories, and with standard virologic methods to ensure consistency and accuracy.</p>
url http://www.virologyj.com/content/8/1/332
work_keys_str_mv AT millerekathryn realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT griffinmarier realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT edwardskathrynm realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT harterttinav realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT gernjamese realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT alis realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT gebretsadiktebeb realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT pappastressa realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT leewaiming realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
AT williamsjohnv realworldcomparisonoftwomolecularmethodsfordetectionofrespiratoryviruses
_version_ 1725454877795024896