4.6 Article

Evaluation of a BK virus viral load assay using the QIAGEN Artus BK Virus RG PCR test

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 260-264

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2012.03.007

关键词

BK Virus Quantitation; Viral loads; Automation; SNP genotyping; Artus Real-Time PCR Test

类别

资金

  1. QIAGEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Viral load testing for BK Virus (BKV) has become the standard of care for the diagnosis of infection and monitoring of therapy of kidney transplant patients infected with BKV. However, there are currently no FDA-approved BKV quantification assays and no standardization among available tests. Objective and study design: This study evaluated the performance of the Artus BK Virus RG PCR (RUO) assay (QIAGEN) for accuracy, linearity, precision, analytical sensitivity, specificity, and correlation with a referral laboratory test in patient samples. Results: Linear regression analysis of the quantitative results demonstrated a linear range of quantification from 192 to 194 million (2.28 to 8.29 log(10)) DNA copies/mL and a coefficient of determination (R-2) of 0.994. A dilution series demonstrated a limit of detection and a limit of quantification of 2.00 log(10), and 2.30 log(10) copies/mL (>95% positivity rate), respectively. The precision of the assay was highly reproducible among runs with coefficients of variance (CV) ranging from 0.2% to 7.0%. A comparison of 34 matched samples showed a good agreement (R-2 = 0.983) between the Artus BK test and the referral laboratory results, with an average positive bias (0.39 log(10) copies/mL). Genotyping analysis using large-T antigen sequences demonstrated that 90% of the positive samples were BKV type I, and that there was no significant difference in quantification between the referral laboratory and Artus BK Virus tests. Conclusions: The Artus BK Virus RG PCR test is a reliable and sensitive assay for BKV DNA quantification as compared to the referral laboratory test. (C) 2012 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据