Comparison of the conventional multiplex RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay for the detection of respiratory viruses
Detection of respiratory viruses using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is sensitive, specific and cost effective, having huge potential for patient management. In this study, the performance of an in‐house developed conventional multiplex RT–PCR (mRT–PCR), real time RT–PCR (rtRT–PCR) and Luminex xTA...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical virology 2016-01, Vol.88 (1), p.51-57 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 57 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 51 |
| container_title | Journal of medical virology |
| container_volume | 88 |
| creator | Choudhary, Manohar L. Anand, Siddharth P. Tikhe, Shamal A. Walimbe, Atul M. Potdar, Varsha A. Chadha, Mandeep S. Mishra, Akhilesh C. |
| description | Detection of respiratory viruses using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is sensitive, specific and cost effective, having huge potential for patient management. In this study, the performance of an in‐house developed conventional multiplex RT–PCR (mRT–PCR), real time RT–PCR (rtRT–PCR) and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) for the detection of respiratory viruses was compared. A total 310 respiratory clinical specimens predominantly from pediatric patients, referred for diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1pdm09 from August 2009 to March 2011 were tested to determine performance characteristic of the three methods. A total 193 (62.2%) samples were detected positive for one or more viruses by mRT–PCR, 175 (56.4%) samples by real time monoplex RT‐PCR, and 138 (44.5%) samples by xTAG® RVP fast assay. The overall sensitivity of mRT–PCR was 96.9% (95% CI: 93.5, 98.8), rtRT–PCR 87.9% (95% CI: 82.5, 92.1) and xTAG® RVP fast was 68.3% (95% CI: 61.4, 74.6). Rhinovirus was detected most commonly followed by respiratory syncytial virus group B and influenza A/H1N1pdm09. The monoplex real time RT–PCR and in‐house developed mRT‐PCR are more sensitive, specific and cost effective than the xTAG® RVP fast assay. J. Med. Virol. 88:51–57, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jmv.24299 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7166673</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1728672515</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4819-d8055ade638499ece6fe3b43f356387b2b456ac3b9a6071e424785456d6b74673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kdFu0zAYhSMEYt3gghdAlrgBiWy2YzvxDdLooIAKVF0Zl5aT_GEuSVzspLTvwLPwEDwZ7tJVgMSVpePvHP-_TxQ9IviUYEzPls36lDIq5Z1oRLAUscQpuRuNMGEiFoLwo-jY-yXGOJOU3o-OqAg-JvEo-jG2zUo7422LbIW6a0CFbdfQdsa2ukZNX3dmVcMGzRfxbDx_jhwEuTMN7BWk2xJN-8a0Adoszie_fqL51QxV2ndIe6-3qLLuJrmEDopd8O4pB35lnO6s26K1cb0H_yC6V-naw8P9eRJ9ev1qMX4TTz9O3o7Pp3HBMiLjMsOc6xJEkjEpoQBRQZKzpEp4kNKc5owLXSS51CJ8BDDK0owHrRR5ykSanEQvhtxVnzdQFmFbp2u1cqbRbqusNurvm9Zcqy92rVIiRPCHgKf7AGe_9eA71RhfQF3rFmzvFUlpJlLKCQ_ok3_Qpe1d-NqBwpwknAbq2UAVznrvoDoMQ7DadaxCx-qm48A-_nP6A3lbagDOBuC7qWH7_yT17v3VbWQ8OIzvYHNwaPdVhXVTrj5_mKgseYkvxOVMXSa_AThMwNM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1728051352</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the conventional multiplex RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay for the detection of respiratory viruses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Choudhary, Manohar L. ; Anand, Siddharth P. ; Tikhe, Shamal A. ; Walimbe, Atul M. ; Potdar, Varsha A. ; Chadha, Mandeep S. ; Mishra, Akhilesh C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Choudhary, Manohar L. ; Anand, Siddharth P. ; Tikhe, Shamal A. ; Walimbe, Atul M. ; Potdar, Varsha A. ; Chadha, Mandeep S. ; Mishra, Akhilesh C.</creatorcontrib><description>Detection of respiratory viruses using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is sensitive, specific and cost effective, having huge potential for patient management. In this study, the performance of an in‐house developed conventional multiplex RT–PCR (mRT–PCR), real time RT–PCR (rtRT–PCR) and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) for the detection of respiratory viruses was compared. A total 310 respiratory clinical specimens predominantly from pediatric patients, referred for diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1pdm09 from August 2009 to March 2011 were tested to determine performance characteristic of the three methods. A total 193 (62.2%) samples were detected positive for one or more viruses by mRT–PCR, 175 (56.4%) samples by real time monoplex RT‐PCR, and 138 (44.5%) samples by xTAG® RVP fast assay. The overall sensitivity of mRT–PCR was 96.9% (95% CI: 93.5, 98.8), rtRT–PCR 87.9% (95% CI: 82.5, 92.1) and xTAG® RVP fast was 68.3% (95% CI: 61.4, 74.6). Rhinovirus was detected most commonly followed by respiratory syncytial virus group B and influenza A/H1N1pdm09. The monoplex real time RT–PCR and in‐house developed mRT‐PCR are more sensitive, specific and cost effective than the xTAG® RVP fast assay. J. Med. Virol. 88:51–57, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0146-6615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9071</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmv.24299</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26100490</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Bioassays ; Child, Preschool ; Diagnostic tests ; Female ; Humans ; Infant ; Male ; Molecular Diagnostic Techniques - methods ; Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods ; Polymerase chain reaction ; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods ; Respiratory Tract Infections - diagnosis ; Respiratory Tract Infections - virology ; respiratory viruses ; Retrospective Studies ; RT-PCR ; RVP assay ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Viral infections ; Virology ; Virus Diseases - diagnosis ; Virus Diseases - virology ; Viruses - isolation & purification ; xTAG</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical virology, 2016-01, Vol.88 (1), p.51-57</ispartof><rights>2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4819-d8055ade638499ece6fe3b43f356387b2b456ac3b9a6071e424785456d6b74673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4819-d8055ade638499ece6fe3b43f356387b2b456ac3b9a6071e424785456d6b74673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmv.24299$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmv.24299$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100490$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Choudhary, Manohar L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anand, Siddharth P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tikhe, Shamal A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walimbe, Atul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potdar, Varsha A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chadha, Mandeep S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mishra, Akhilesh C.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the conventional multiplex RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay for the detection of respiratory viruses</title><title>Journal of medical virology</title><addtitle>J. Med. Virol</addtitle><description>Detection of respiratory viruses using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is sensitive, specific and cost effective, having huge potential for patient management. In this study, the performance of an in‐house developed conventional multiplex RT–PCR (mRT–PCR), real time RT–PCR (rtRT–PCR) and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) for the detection of respiratory viruses was compared. A total 310 respiratory clinical specimens predominantly from pediatric patients, referred for diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1pdm09 from August 2009 to March 2011 were tested to determine performance characteristic of the three methods. A total 193 (62.2%) samples were detected positive for one or more viruses by mRT–PCR, 175 (56.4%) samples by real time monoplex RT‐PCR, and 138 (44.5%) samples by xTAG® RVP fast assay. The overall sensitivity of mRT–PCR was 96.9% (95% CI: 93.5, 98.8), rtRT–PCR 87.9% (95% CI: 82.5, 92.1) and xTAG® RVP fast was 68.3% (95% CI: 61.4, 74.6). Rhinovirus was detected most commonly followed by respiratory syncytial virus group B and influenza A/H1N1pdm09. The monoplex real time RT–PCR and in‐house developed mRT‐PCR are more sensitive, specific and cost effective than the xTAG® RVP fast assay. J. Med. Virol. 88:51–57, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bioassays</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Diagnostic tests</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Molecular Diagnostic Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</subject><subject>Polymerase chain reaction</subject><subject>Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</subject><subject>Respiratory Tract Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Respiratory Tract Infections - virology</subject><subject>respiratory viruses</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>RT-PCR</subject><subject>RVP assay</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Viral infections</subject><subject>Virology</subject><subject>Virus Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Virus Diseases - virology</subject><subject>Viruses - isolation & purification</subject><subject>xTAG</subject><issn>0146-6615</issn><issn>1096-9071</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kdFu0zAYhSMEYt3gghdAlrgBiWy2YzvxDdLooIAKVF0Zl5aT_GEuSVzspLTvwLPwEDwZ7tJVgMSVpePvHP-_TxQ9IviUYEzPls36lDIq5Z1oRLAUscQpuRuNMGEiFoLwo-jY-yXGOJOU3o-OqAg-JvEo-jG2zUo7422LbIW6a0CFbdfQdsa2ukZNX3dmVcMGzRfxbDx_jhwEuTMN7BWk2xJN-8a0Adoszie_fqL51QxV2ndIe6-3qLLuJrmEDopd8O4pB35lnO6s26K1cb0H_yC6V-naw8P9eRJ9ev1qMX4TTz9O3o7Pp3HBMiLjMsOc6xJEkjEpoQBRQZKzpEp4kNKc5owLXSS51CJ8BDDK0owHrRR5ykSanEQvhtxVnzdQFmFbp2u1cqbRbqusNurvm9Zcqy92rVIiRPCHgKf7AGe_9eA71RhfQF3rFmzvFUlpJlLKCQ_ok3_Qpe1d-NqBwpwknAbq2UAVznrvoDoMQ7DadaxCx-qm48A-_nP6A3lbagDOBuC7qWH7_yT17v3VbWQ8OIzvYHNwaPdVhXVTrj5_mKgseYkvxOVMXSa_AThMwNM</recordid><startdate>201601</startdate><enddate>201601</enddate><creator>Choudhary, Manohar L.</creator><creator>Anand, Siddharth P.</creator><creator>Tikhe, Shamal A.</creator><creator>Walimbe, Atul M.</creator><creator>Potdar, Varsha A.</creator><creator>Chadha, Mandeep S.</creator><creator>Mishra, Akhilesh C.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201601</creationdate><title>Comparison of the conventional multiplex RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay for the detection of respiratory viruses</title><author>Choudhary, Manohar L. ; Anand, Siddharth P. ; Tikhe, Shamal A. ; Walimbe, Atul M. ; Potdar, Varsha A. ; Chadha, Mandeep S. ; Mishra, Akhilesh C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4819-d8055ade638499ece6fe3b43f356387b2b456ac3b9a6071e424785456d6b74673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bioassays</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Diagnostic tests</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Molecular Diagnostic Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</topic><topic>Polymerase chain reaction</topic><topic>Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</topic><topic>Respiratory Tract Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Respiratory Tract Infections - virology</topic><topic>respiratory viruses</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>RT-PCR</topic><topic>RVP assay</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Viral infections</topic><topic>Virology</topic><topic>Virus Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Virus Diseases - virology</topic><topic>Viruses - isolation & purification</topic><topic>xTAG</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Choudhary, Manohar L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anand, Siddharth P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tikhe, Shamal A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walimbe, Atul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potdar, Varsha A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chadha, Mandeep S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mishra, Akhilesh C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical virology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Choudhary, Manohar L.</au><au>Anand, Siddharth P.</au><au>Tikhe, Shamal A.</au><au>Walimbe, Atul M.</au><au>Potdar, Varsha A.</au><au>Chadha, Mandeep S.</au><au>Mishra, Akhilesh C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the conventional multiplex RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay for the detection of respiratory viruses</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical virology</jtitle><addtitle>J. Med. Virol</addtitle><date>2016-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>88</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>51</spage><epage>57</epage><pages>51-57</pages><issn>0146-6615</issn><eissn>1096-9071</eissn><abstract>Detection of respiratory viruses using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is sensitive, specific and cost effective, having huge potential for patient management. In this study, the performance of an in‐house developed conventional multiplex RT–PCR (mRT–PCR), real time RT–PCR (rtRT–PCR) and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay (Luminex Diagnostics, Toronto, Canada) for the detection of respiratory viruses was compared. A total 310 respiratory clinical specimens predominantly from pediatric patients, referred for diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1pdm09 from August 2009 to March 2011 were tested to determine performance characteristic of the three methods. A total 193 (62.2%) samples were detected positive for one or more viruses by mRT–PCR, 175 (56.4%) samples by real time monoplex RT‐PCR, and 138 (44.5%) samples by xTAG® RVP fast assay. The overall sensitivity of mRT–PCR was 96.9% (95% CI: 93.5, 98.8), rtRT–PCR 87.9% (95% CI: 82.5, 92.1) and xTAG® RVP fast was 68.3% (95% CI: 61.4, 74.6). Rhinovirus was detected most commonly followed by respiratory syncytial virus group B and influenza A/H1N1pdm09. The monoplex real time RT–PCR and in‐house developed mRT‐PCR are more sensitive, specific and cost effective than the xTAG® RVP fast assay. J. Med. Virol. 88:51–57, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26100490</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmv.24299</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0146-6615 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical virology, 2016-01, Vol.88 (1), p.51-57 |
| issn | 0146-6615 1096-9071 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7166673 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Animals Bioassays Child, Preschool Diagnostic tests Female Humans Infant Male Molecular Diagnostic Techniques - methods Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods Polymerase chain reaction Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods Respiratory Tract Infections - diagnosis Respiratory Tract Infections - virology respiratory viruses Retrospective Studies RT-PCR RVP assay Sensitivity and Specificity Viral infections Virology Virus Diseases - diagnosis Virus Diseases - virology Viruses - isolation & purification xTAG |
| title | Comparison of the conventional multiplex RT-PCR, real time RT-PCR and Luminex xTAG® RVP fast assay for the detection of respiratory viruses |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T23%3A05%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20conventional%20multiplex%20RT-PCR,%20real%20time%20RT-PCR%20and%20Luminex%20xTAG%C2%AE%20RVP%20fast%20assay%20for%20the%20detection%20of%20respiratory%20viruses&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20virology&rft.au=Choudhary,%20Manohar%20L.&rft.date=2016-01&rft.volume=88&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=51&rft.epage=57&rft.pages=51-57&rft.issn=0146-6615&rft.eissn=1096-9071&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmv.24299&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1728672515%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1728051352&rft_id=info:pmid/26100490&rfr_iscdi=true |