Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues

Testing for cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is increasingly being used for specimen types other than plasma or whole blood. However, few studies have investigated the performance of different nucleic acid extraction protocols in such specimens. In this study, CMV extraction using the Cell-free 1000 and Pa...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jesse J. Waggoner, Benjamin A. Pinsky
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PeerJ Inc. 2014-04-01
Series:PeerJ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://peerj.com/articles/334.pdf
_version_ 1827606482057691136
author Jesse J. Waggoner
Benjamin A. Pinsky
author_facet Jesse J. Waggoner
Benjamin A. Pinsky
author_sort Jesse J. Waggoner
collection DOAJ
description Testing for cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is increasingly being used for specimen types other than plasma or whole blood. However, few studies have investigated the performance of different nucleic acid extraction protocols in such specimens. In this study, CMV extraction using the Cell-free 1000 and Pathogen Complex 400 protocols on the QIAsymphony Sample Processing (SP) system were compared using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL), tissue samples, and urine. The QIAsymphonyAssay Set-up (AS) system was used to assemble reactions using artus CMV PCR reagents and amplification was carried out on the Rotor-Gene Q. Samples from 93 patients previously tested for CMV DNA and negative samples spiked with CMV AD-169 were used to evaluate assay performance. The Pathogen Complex 400 protocol yielded the following results: BAL, sensitivity 100% (33/33), specificity 87% (20/23); tissue, sensitivity 100% (25/25), specificity 100% (20/20); urine, sensitivity 100% (21/21), specificity 100% (20/20). Cell-free 1000 extraction gave comparable results for BAL and tissue, however, for urine, the sensitivity was 86% (18/21) and specimen quantitation was inaccurate. Comparative studies of different extraction protocols and DNA detection methods in body fluids and tissues are needed, as assays optimized for blood or plasma will not necessarily perform well on other specimen types.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T06:37:51Z
format Article
id doaj.art-14c21a08f70f4653aac015c86822874d
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2167-8359
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T06:37:51Z
publishDate 2014-04-01
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format Article
series PeerJ
spelling doaj.art-14c21a08f70f4653aac015c86822874d2023-12-03T10:54:59ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592014-04-012e33410.7717/peerj.334334Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissuesJesse J. Waggoner0Benjamin A. Pinsky1Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USADepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USATesting for cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is increasingly being used for specimen types other than plasma or whole blood. However, few studies have investigated the performance of different nucleic acid extraction protocols in such specimens. In this study, CMV extraction using the Cell-free 1000 and Pathogen Complex 400 protocols on the QIAsymphony Sample Processing (SP) system were compared using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL), tissue samples, and urine. The QIAsymphonyAssay Set-up (AS) system was used to assemble reactions using artus CMV PCR reagents and amplification was carried out on the Rotor-Gene Q. Samples from 93 patients previously tested for CMV DNA and negative samples spiked with CMV AD-169 were used to evaluate assay performance. The Pathogen Complex 400 protocol yielded the following results: BAL, sensitivity 100% (33/33), specificity 87% (20/23); tissue, sensitivity 100% (25/25), specificity 100% (20/20); urine, sensitivity 100% (21/21), specificity 100% (20/20). Cell-free 1000 extraction gave comparable results for BAL and tissue, however, for urine, the sensitivity was 86% (18/21) and specimen quantitation was inaccurate. Comparative studies of different extraction protocols and DNA detection methods in body fluids and tissues are needed, as assays optimized for blood or plasma will not necessarily perform well on other specimen types.https://peerj.com/articles/334.pdfCytomegalovirusLaboratory medicineClinical virology
spellingShingle Jesse J. Waggoner
Benjamin A. Pinsky
Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues
PeerJ
Cytomegalovirus
Laboratory medicine
Clinical virology
title Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues
title_full Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues
title_fullStr Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues
title_short Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus DNA in fluids and tissues
title_sort comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods for the detection of cytomegalovirus dna in fluids and tissues
topic Cytomegalovirus
Laboratory medicine
Clinical virology
url https://peerj.com/articles/334.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT jessejwaggoner comparisonofautomatednucleicacidextractionmethodsforthedetectionofcytomegalovirusdnainfluidsandtissues
AT benjaminapinsky comparisonofautomatednucleicacidextractionmethodsforthedetectionofcytomegalovirusdnainfluidsandtissues