|
|
|||
|
Literature reviews > Articles for review > Dutro et al. Development and performance of.. |
|||
|
A microwell-plate-based PCR assay is sensitive and specific for the detection of M. genitalium. Development and performance of a
microwell-plate-based polymerase chain reaction assay for Mycoplasma
genitalium. Question Design Participants Description of Tests and Diagnostic
Standard To determine the limit of detection of the MW assays, 16 replicate reactions each of serial 2-fold dilutions containing 128 to 1 copy of M. genitalium DNA and 64, 32 or 16 copies of internal control plasmid were analyzed using a positive cut-off of 0.10 OD. Three specimen processing procedures were used to prepare the urine specimens for PCR analyses. 1) Urine samples were centrifuged, and the pellets were suspended in buffer and frozen. Thawed specimens were centrifuged again and the pellets suspended in lysis buffer, proteinase K, and Instagene matrix (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). 2) Urine specimens were processed according to the AMPLICOR CT/NG specimen preparation kit (Roche, urine procedure). 3) Urine was processed with the MasterPure DNA Purification kit (Epicentre) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Urine was processed by the Instagene method on the day of collection and tested by the SB assay. Frozen urine specimens were processed by the Roche and Epicentre methods and analyzed by the MW assay. The amount of original urine specimen added to the PCR assays was 80 μl, 50 μl, or 16 μl for the Instagene matrix, Roche, and Epicentre specimen preparation methods, respectively. Main Outcome Measures Main Results The MW assay OD values for 45 of the 50 cervical specimens that were negative by the SB assay ranged from 0.00 to 0.10, while values for 5 were >0.25. The MW assay OD values for 47 of the 50 cervical specimens that were positive by the SB assay were >0.25. Three of the SB positive specimens had MW assay OD values between 0.10 and 0.25. The negative cut-off value was set at <0.10, the positive cut-off value at >0.25, and the equivocal zone was set at >0.10 and <0.25. All positive specimens were repeat tested. All samples in the equivocal zone were repeated in duplicate; samples were positive if they had 1 positive or 2 equivocal values on repeat analyses. The 5 SB negative samples that were MW positive were negative when repeated and thus classified as negative. The 3 SB positive samples that were MW equivocal were classified as positive after being repeated in duplicate. Therefore, all 50 SB positive and all 50 SB negative cervical specimens were concordant by the MW assay. The cut-off value for the internal control was set at <0.25 for inhibited specimens. All of the 100 cervical specimens had internal control ODs >0.25. Of the 32 urine specimens prepared by the Instagene matrix method and positive by the SB assay, 25 (78%) specimens prepared by the Roche method and 24 (75%) prepared by the Epicentre method were positive by the MW PCR after resolving equivocal specimens by repeat analyses. All 32 SB negative urine specimens were also negative by the MW assay irrespective of the specimen processing method. Five specimens processed by the Roche method were initially inhibited for amplification. They were M. genitalium negative and no longer inhibited after freezing, thawing and retesting. The MW assay was 89% (57/64) and 88% (56/64) concordant (kappa = 0.78 and 0.75) with the SB assay for urine specimens processed by the Roche and Epicentre methods, respectively. Nineteen urine specimens processed by the Epicentre method were tested by the SB PCR. One of 9 initially SB positive/MW negative, 5 of 5 concordant positive, and none of 5 concordant negative specimens were positive by the repeat SB assay. Authors' Conclusions Source of funding: Grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases For correspondence: Patricia A. Totten, Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Box 359779, 325 9th Ave., Seattle, WA 98104. E-mail address: patotten@u.washington.edu. |
|||
|
about SDI | newsletters | grants | publications | literature reviews WHO
Home -
WHO
Search - TDR Home - SDI Home -
SDI Contact us
|
|||