4.2 Article

Development of new IL28B genotyping method using Invader Plus assay

Journal

MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 318-323

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2012.00439.x

Keywords

interferon; IL28B; single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping; invader plus assay

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan [H22-kannen-005]
  2. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  3. [23903]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22390151, 23390117] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IL28B polymorphism is associated with the response to pegylated interferon-a with ribavirin (PEG-IFN-a/RBV) treatment in chronic hepatitis C patients. As a genotyping assay for IL28B single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in clinical practice, the Invader Plus assay was developed. The accuracy, intra-assay, inter-assay precision, and the limit of detection of the Invader Plus assay were evaluated. Two SNPs (rs8099917 and rs12979860) associated with IL28B were genotyped by the Invader Plus and TaqMan assay in 512 Japanese patients. In comparison with direct sequencing, the Invader Plus assay showed 99% accuracy in rs8099917 and 100% accuracy in rs12979860. Intra-assay and inter-assay precision were sufficient to use in clinical practice and the detection limit was 1ngDNA/assay. Genotyping by rs8099917 showed that 361 (71%), 144 (28%) and seven (1%) of the patients were major homozygous, heterozygous and minor homozygous types, respectively. Five of the 512 cases (1%) had haplotype differences, but none showed differences between the two genotyping methods. For patients with HCV genotype 1, the prevalence of responders in the major homozygous type was 83.3%, and that of non-responders in the minor heterozygous/homozygous type was 72.5%. A convenient IL28B genotyping method using the Invader Plus assay could be useful to predict? the treatment outcome in clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available