Pascal Cherpillod1, Manuel Schibler2, Gaël Vieille1, Samuel Cordey1, Aline Mamin3, Pauline Vetter3, Laurent Kaiser1. 1. Swiss National Reference Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; Laboratory of Virology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; University of Geneva Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Laboratory of Virology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; University of Geneva Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: manuel.schibler@hcuge.ch. 3. Laboratory of Virology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; University of Geneva Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
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.
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 diseasepatient 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.
Authors: Jason W Benzine; Kerry M Brown; Krystle N Agans; Ronald Godiska; Chad E Mire; Krishne Gowda; Brandon Converse; Thomas W Geisbert; David A Mead; Yogesh Chander Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Christopher H Logue; Suzanna M Lewis; Amber Lansley; Sara Fraser; Clare Shieber; Sonal Shah; Amanda Semper; Daniel Bailey; Jason Busuttil; Liz Evans; Miles W Carroll; Nigel J Silman; Tim Brooks; Jane A Shallcross Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Ke Du; Myeongkee Park; Anthony Griffiths; Ricardo Carrion; Jean Patterson; Holger Schmidt; Richard Mathies Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Robert J Shorten; Colin S Brown; Michael Jacobs; Simon Rattenbury; Andrew J Simpson; Stephen Mepham Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2016-10-27
Authors: Toni Rieger; Romy Kerber; Hussein El Halas; Elisa Pallasch; Sophie Duraffour; Stephan Günther; Stephan Ölschläger Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 5.226