Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2016
Ebola virus disease diagnosis by real-time RT-PCR: A comparative study of 11 different procedures.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Cherpillod Pascal, Schibler Manuel, Vieille Gaël, Cordey Samuel, Mamin Aline, Vetter Pauline, Kaiser Laurent
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of Ebola virus disease relies on the detection of viral RNA in blood by real-time reverse-transcription PCR. While several of these assays were developed during the unprecedented 2013-2015 Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa, few were applied in the field.
OBJECTIVES: To compare technical performances and practical aspects of 11 Ebola virus real-time reverse-transcription PCR procedures.
STUDY DESIGN: We selected the most promising assays using serial dilutions of culture-derived Ebola virus RNA and determined their analytical sensitivity and potential range of quantification using quantified in vitro transcribed RNA; viral load values in the serum of an Ebola virus disease patient obtained with these assays were reported. Finally, ease of use and turnaround times of these kits were evaluated.
RESULTS: Commercial assays were at least as sensitive as in-house tests. Five of the former (Altona, Roche, Fast-track Diagnostics, and Life Technologies) were selected for further evaluation. Despite differences in analytical sensitivity and limits of quantification, all of them were suitable for Ebola virus diagnosis and viral load estimation. The Lifetech Lyophilized Ebola Virus (Zaire 2014) assay (Life Technologies) appeared particularly promising, displaying the highest analytical sensitivity and shortest turnaround time, in addition to requiring no reagent freezing.
CONCLUSIONS: Commercial kits were at least as sensitive as in-house tests and potentially easier to use in the field than the latter. This qualitative comparison of real-time reverse transcription PCR assays may serve as a basis for the design of future Ebola virus disease diagnostics.
OBJECTIVES: To compare technical performances and practical aspects of 11 Ebola virus real-time reverse-transcription PCR procedures.
STUDY DESIGN: We selected the most promising assays using serial dilutions of culture-derived Ebola virus RNA and determined their analytical sensitivity and potential range of quantification using quantified in vitro transcribed RNA; viral load values in the serum of an Ebola virus disease patient obtained with these assays were reported. Finally, ease of use and turnaround times of these kits were evaluated.
RESULTS: Commercial assays were at least as sensitive as in-house tests. Five of the former (Altona, Roche, Fast-track Diagnostics, and Life Technologies) were selected for further evaluation. Despite differences in analytical sensitivity and limits of quantification, all of them were suitable for Ebola virus diagnosis and viral load estimation. The Lifetech Lyophilized Ebola Virus (Zaire 2014) assay (Life Technologies) appeared particularly promising, displaying the highest analytical sensitivity and shortest turnaround time, in addition to requiring no reagent freezing.
CONCLUSIONS: Commercial kits were at least as sensitive as in-house tests and potentially easier to use in the field than the latter. This qualitative comparison of real-time reverse transcription PCR assays may serve as a basis for the design of future Ebola virus disease diagnostics.