TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of a novel real-time RT-PCR using TOCE technology compared with culture and Seeplex RV15 for simultaneous detection of respiratory viruses
AU - Cho, Chi Hyun
AU - Chulten, Bayarjavkhlan
AU - Lee, Chang Kyu
AU - Nam, Myung Hyun
AU - Yoon, Soo Young
AU - Lim, Chae Seung
AU - Cho, Yunjung
AU - Kim, Young Kee
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was partly supported by a grant of the TEPIK (Transgovernmental Enterprise for Pandemic Influenza in Korea)‚ which part of Korea Healthcare technology R&D Project by Ministry of Health & Welfare‚ Republic of Korea grant no.: A103001 ).
PY - 2013/8
Y1 - 2013/8
N2 - Background: Various kinds of commercial molecular systems have been developed for fast and more accurate detection of respiratory viruses. Anyplex™ II RV16 [RV16] was designed for simultaneous detection of 16 respiratory viruses using multiplex PCR coupled with TOCE™ technology. Objectives: To compare the performance of RV16 with those of culture and Seeplex® RV15 ACE [RV15] by determining their sensitivity and specificity. Study design: Seven hundred and thirty respiratory samples were tested by modified shell vial culture method, RV16, and RV15. For molecular tests, automated nucleic acid extraction and liquid handling system using MICROLAB Nimbus IVD (Hamilton, USA) was adopted to maximize the workflow and accuracy. Performance of each assay was determined against a composite reference standard. Results: Two hundred and one samples (28%) out of 730 samples were positive by culture, while additional 281 (39%) were positive by RV16 or RV15. Sensitivities of RV16, RV15, and culture for virus tested were as follows: 100/93/63% for influenza A, 90/80/69% for influenza B, 98/94/63% for RSV, 98/52/23% for adenovirus, and 100/75/46% for PIV. For viruses not covered by culture, sensitivities of RV16 and RV15 were as follows: 99/81% for rhinovirus, 92/100% for coronavirus OC43, 100/56% for coronavirus 229E/NL63, 92/88% for metapneumovirus, 100/62% for bocavirus, and 91/91% for enterovirus. Overall, the specificities of culture, RV16, and RV15 (Seegene) were 100/99.9/99.9%. Conclusions: RV16 assay was superior to culture method and RV15 and will be a promising tool for patient management and public health epidemiology.
AB - Background: Various kinds of commercial molecular systems have been developed for fast and more accurate detection of respiratory viruses. Anyplex™ II RV16 [RV16] was designed for simultaneous detection of 16 respiratory viruses using multiplex PCR coupled with TOCE™ technology. Objectives: To compare the performance of RV16 with those of culture and Seeplex® RV15 ACE [RV15] by determining their sensitivity and specificity. Study design: Seven hundred and thirty respiratory samples were tested by modified shell vial culture method, RV16, and RV15. For molecular tests, automated nucleic acid extraction and liquid handling system using MICROLAB Nimbus IVD (Hamilton, USA) was adopted to maximize the workflow and accuracy. Performance of each assay was determined against a composite reference standard. Results: Two hundred and one samples (28%) out of 730 samples were positive by culture, while additional 281 (39%) were positive by RV16 or RV15. Sensitivities of RV16, RV15, and culture for virus tested were as follows: 100/93/63% for influenza A, 90/80/69% for influenza B, 98/94/63% for RSV, 98/52/23% for adenovirus, and 100/75/46% for PIV. For viruses not covered by culture, sensitivities of RV16 and RV15 were as follows: 99/81% for rhinovirus, 92/100% for coronavirus OC43, 100/56% for coronavirus 229E/NL63, 92/88% for metapneumovirus, 100/62% for bocavirus, and 91/91% for enterovirus. Overall, the specificities of culture, RV16, and RV15 (Seegene) were 100/99.9/99.9%. Conclusions: RV16 assay was superior to culture method and RV15 and will be a promising tool for patient management and public health epidemiology.
KW - Multiplex RT PCR
KW - Real-time
KW - Respiratory virus
KW - Viral isolation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879262302&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcv.2013.04.014
DO - 10.1016/j.jcv.2013.04.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 23743345
AN - SCOPUS:84879262302
SN - 1386-6532
VL - 57
SP - 338
EP - 342
JO - Journal of Clinical Virology
JF - Journal of Clinical Virology
IS - 4
ER -