Comparison of one commercial and two in-house TaqMan multiplex real-time PCR assays for detection of enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli

Standard

Comparison of one commercial and two in-house TaqMan multiplex real-time PCR assays for detection of enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. / Hahn, Andreas; Lütgehetmann, Marc; Landt, Olfert; Schwarz, Norbert Georg; Frickmann, Hagen.

In: TROP MED INT HEALTH, Vol. 22, No. 11, 11.2017, p. 1371-1376.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{24e890099b4849ba8019c0bfc2d87f86,
title = "Comparison of one commercial and two in-house TaqMan multiplex real-time PCR assays for detection of enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EPEC, ETEC, EAEC) are among the most frequent causes of diarrhoea during travel or on military deployments. Cost-efficient and reliable real-time multiplex PCR (mPCR) assays are desirable for surveillance or point prevalence studies in remote and resource-limited tropical settings. We compared one commercial PCR kit and two in-house assays without using a gold standard to estimate sensitivity and specificity of each assay.METHODS: Residual materials from nucleic acid extractions of stool samples from two groups with presumably different prevalences and increased likelihood of being infected or colonised by diarrhoeagenic E. coli were included in the assessment. One group comprised samples from returnees from tropical deployments, the second group was of migrants and study participants from high-endemicity settings. Each sample was assessed with all of the PCR assays. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were descriptively compared.RESULTS: The calculated sensitivities for the commercial test vs. the in-house tests were for EPEC 0.84 vs. 0.89 and 0.96, for ETEC 0.83 vs. 0.76 and 0.61, and for EAEC 0.69 vs. 0.54 and 0.69. False positive results were rare - specificity was 0.94 and 0.97 for two EPEC tests and 1.0 for all other tests. Most positive samples had late Ct values corresponding to low quantities of pathogens. Discordant test results were associated with late Ct values.CONCLUSIONS: As commercial and in-house assays showed comparable results, in-house tests can be assumed to be safe while affording considerable savings, making them a valuable alternative for surveillance testing in resource-limited tropical areas.",
keywords = "Commerce, Diarrhea, Endemic Diseases, Escherichia coli, Escherichia coli Infections, Feces, Health Resources, Humans, Military Personnel, Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sensitivity and Specificity, Transients and Migrants, Travel, Tropical Climate, Comparative Study, Evaluation Studies, Journal Article",
author = "Andreas Hahn and Marc L{\"u}tgehetmann and Olfert Landt and Schwarz, {Norbert Georg} and Hagen Frickmann",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2017",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1111/tmi.12976",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1371--1376",
journal = "TROP MED INT HEALTH",
issn = "1360-2276",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of one commercial and two in-house TaqMan multiplex real-time PCR assays for detection of enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli

AU - Hahn, Andreas

AU - Lütgehetmann, Marc

AU - Landt, Olfert

AU - Schwarz, Norbert Georg

AU - Frickmann, Hagen

N1 - © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2017/11

Y1 - 2017/11

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EPEC, ETEC, EAEC) are among the most frequent causes of diarrhoea during travel or on military deployments. Cost-efficient and reliable real-time multiplex PCR (mPCR) assays are desirable for surveillance or point prevalence studies in remote and resource-limited tropical settings. We compared one commercial PCR kit and two in-house assays without using a gold standard to estimate sensitivity and specificity of each assay.METHODS: Residual materials from nucleic acid extractions of stool samples from two groups with presumably different prevalences and increased likelihood of being infected or colonised by diarrhoeagenic E. coli were included in the assessment. One group comprised samples from returnees from tropical deployments, the second group was of migrants and study participants from high-endemicity settings. Each sample was assessed with all of the PCR assays. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were descriptively compared.RESULTS: The calculated sensitivities for the commercial test vs. the in-house tests were for EPEC 0.84 vs. 0.89 and 0.96, for ETEC 0.83 vs. 0.76 and 0.61, and for EAEC 0.69 vs. 0.54 and 0.69. False positive results were rare - specificity was 0.94 and 0.97 for two EPEC tests and 1.0 for all other tests. Most positive samples had late Ct values corresponding to low quantities of pathogens. Discordant test results were associated with late Ct values.CONCLUSIONS: As commercial and in-house assays showed comparable results, in-house tests can be assumed to be safe while affording considerable savings, making them a valuable alternative for surveillance testing in resource-limited tropical areas.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Enteropathogenic, enterotoxigenic and enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EPEC, ETEC, EAEC) are among the most frequent causes of diarrhoea during travel or on military deployments. Cost-efficient and reliable real-time multiplex PCR (mPCR) assays are desirable for surveillance or point prevalence studies in remote and resource-limited tropical settings. We compared one commercial PCR kit and two in-house assays without using a gold standard to estimate sensitivity and specificity of each assay.METHODS: Residual materials from nucleic acid extractions of stool samples from two groups with presumably different prevalences and increased likelihood of being infected or colonised by diarrhoeagenic E. coli were included in the assessment. One group comprised samples from returnees from tropical deployments, the second group was of migrants and study participants from high-endemicity settings. Each sample was assessed with all of the PCR assays. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were descriptively compared.RESULTS: The calculated sensitivities for the commercial test vs. the in-house tests were for EPEC 0.84 vs. 0.89 and 0.96, for ETEC 0.83 vs. 0.76 and 0.61, and for EAEC 0.69 vs. 0.54 and 0.69. False positive results were rare - specificity was 0.94 and 0.97 for two EPEC tests and 1.0 for all other tests. Most positive samples had late Ct values corresponding to low quantities of pathogens. Discordant test results were associated with late Ct values.CONCLUSIONS: As commercial and in-house assays showed comparable results, in-house tests can be assumed to be safe while affording considerable savings, making them a valuable alternative for surveillance testing in resource-limited tropical areas.

KW - Commerce

KW - Diarrhea

KW - Endemic Diseases

KW - Escherichia coli

KW - Escherichia coli Infections

KW - Feces

KW - Health Resources

KW - Humans

KW - Military Personnel

KW - Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction

KW - Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Transients and Migrants

KW - Travel

KW - Tropical Climate

KW - Comparative Study

KW - Evaluation Studies

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1111/tmi.12976

DO - 10.1111/tmi.12976

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 28906580

VL - 22

SP - 1371

EP - 1376

JO - TROP MED INT HEALTH

JF - TROP MED INT HEALTH

SN - 1360-2276

IS - 11

ER -