Sexual health · 2019
False-negative Chlamydia polymerase chain reaction result caused by a cryptic plasmid-deficient Chlamydia trachomatis strain in Australia.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sweeney Emma L, Bletchly Cheryl, Gupta Rita, Whiley David M
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Background The 7.5-kb chlamydial cryptic plasmid remains a widely used sequence target for Chlamydia trachomatis nucleic acid amplification tests, but sequence variation in this plasmid, particularly a previously reported 377-bp deletion, can cause false-negative results. Here we report the presence in Australia of a C. trachomatis strain lacking the cryptic plasmid.
METHODS: A rectal swab from a male in his 50s provided a positive result for C. trachomatis using the Roche Cobas 4800 test, but a negative result in our confirmatory in-house polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method targeting the chlamydial cryptic plasmid. This result was unexpected given our in-house PCR assay targeted a region of sequence outside the recognised 377-bp deletion. To further investigate this discrepancy, the sample was retested using a second in-house PCR targeting a chromosomal (ompA) gene as well as six primer sets flanking various regions of the cryptic plasmid.
RESULTS: The sample provided positive results in the second in-house method, confirming the presence of C. trachomatis DNA. All other primer sets targeting the cryptic plasmid failed to amplify, indicating a lack of the chlamydial cryptic plasmid in this sample.
CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of a plasmid-deficient strain of C. trachomatis within Australia highlights further limitations of using the chlamydial cryptic plasmid for C. trachomatis diagnostics and re-emphasises the benefits of using multitarget assays to avoid false-negative results.
METHODS: A rectal swab from a male in his 50s provided a positive result for C. trachomatis using the Roche Cobas 4800 test, but a negative result in our confirmatory in-house polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method targeting the chlamydial cryptic plasmid. This result was unexpected given our in-house PCR assay targeted a region of sequence outside the recognised 377-bp deletion. To further investigate this discrepancy, the sample was retested using a second in-house PCR targeting a chromosomal (ompA) gene as well as six primer sets flanking various regions of the cryptic plasmid.
RESULTS: The sample provided positive results in the second in-house method, confirming the presence of C. trachomatis DNA. All other primer sets targeting the cryptic plasmid failed to amplify, indicating a lack of the chlamydial cryptic plasmid in this sample.
CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of a plasmid-deficient strain of C. trachomatis within Australia highlights further limitations of using the chlamydial cryptic plasmid for C. trachomatis diagnostics and re-emphasises the benefits of using multitarget assays to avoid false-negative results.