4.7 Article

Development and Clinical Validation of Multiplex TaqMan® Assays for Rapid Diagnosis of Viral Gastroenteritis

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 83, 期 9, 页码 1650-1656

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.22162

关键词

viral gastroenteritis; real-time PCR

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a need to provide rapid, sensitive, and often high throughput detection of pathogens in diagnostic virology. Viral gastroenteritis is a serious health issue often leading to hospitalization in the young, the immunocompromised and the elderly. The common causes of viral gastroenteritis include rotavirus, norovirus (genogroups I and II), astrovirus, and group F adenoviruses (serotypes 40 and 41). This article describes the work-up of two internally controlled multiplex, probe-based PCR assays and reports on the clinical validation over a 3-year period, March 2007 to February 2010. Multiplex assays were developed using a combination of TaqMan (TM) and minor groove binder (MGB (TM)) hydrolysis probes. The assays were validated using a panel of 137 specimens, previously positive via a nested gel-based assay. The assays had improved sensitivity for adenovirus, rotavirus, and norovirus (97.3% vs. 86.1%, 100% vs. 87.8%, and 95.1% vs. 79.5%, respectively) and also more specific for targets adenovirus, rotavirus, and norovirus (99% vs. 95.2%, 100% vs. 93.6%, and 97.9% vs. 92.3%, respectively). For the specimens tested, both assays had equal sensitivity and specificity for astrovirus (100%). Overall the probe-based assays detected 16 more positive specimens than the nested gel-based assay. Post-introduction to the routine diagnostic service, a total of 9,846 specimens were processed with multiplex 1 and 2 (7,053 pediatric, 2,793 adult) over the 3-year study period. This clinically validated, probe-based multiplex testing algorithm allows highly sensitive and timely diagnosis of the four most prominent causes of viral gastroenteritis. J. Med. Virol. 83: 1650-1656, 2011. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.7
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