Mars Stone1, Marion C Lanteri1,2, Sonia Bakkour1, Xutao Deng1, Susan A Galel3, Jeffrey M Linnen4, Jorge L Muñoz-Jordán5, Robert S Lanciotti6, Maria Rios7, Pierre Gallian8,9, Didier Musso10, José E Levi11, Ester C Sabino12, Lark L Coffey13, Michael P Busch1,2. 1. Blood Systems Research Institute, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, Pleasanton, California. 4. Hologic, Inc, San Diego, California. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), San Juan, Puerto Rico. 6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado. 7. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 8. Etablissement Français du Sang, Aix-Marseille Université and French Institute of Research for Development, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Unité Mixte de Recherche, D190 Emergence des Pathologies Virales, Marseille, France. 9. Aix-Marseille Université and French Institute of Research for Development, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Unité Mixte de Recherche, D190 Emergence des Pathologies Virales, Marseille, France. 10. Institut Louis Malarde, Papeete, Tahiti, Polynésie Française. 11. Departamento de Biologia Molecular, Fundação Pró-Sangue/Hemocentro de São Paulo. 12. Departmento de Molestias Infecciosas e Parasitarias, Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 13. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zika virus (ZIKV) has spread rapidly in the Pacific and throughout the Americas and is associated with severe congenital and adult neurologic outcomes. Nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT) assays were developed for diagnostic applications and for blood donor screening on high-throughput NAT systems. We distributed blinded panels to compare the analytical performance of blood screening relative to diagnostic NAT assays. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A 25-member, coded panel (11 half-log dilutions of a 2013 French Polynesia ZIKV isolate and 2015 Brazilian donor plasma implicated in transfusion transmission, and 3 negative controls) was sent to 11 laboratories that performed 17 assays with 2 to 12 replicates per panel member. Results were analyzed for the percentage reactivity at each dilution and by probit analysis to estimate the 50% and 95% limits of detection (LOD50 and LOD95 , respectively). RESULTS: Donor-screening NAT assays that process approximately 500 µL of plasma into amplification reactions were comparable in sensitivity (LOD50 and LOD95 , 2.5 and 15-18 copies/mL) and were approximately 10-fold to 100-fold more sensitive than research laboratory-developed and diagnostic reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction tests that process from 10 to 30 µL of plasma per amplification. Increasing sample input volume assayed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays increased the LODs by 10-fold to 30-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Blood donor-screening ZIKV NAT assays demonstrate similar excellent sensitivities to assays currently used for screening for transfusion-transmitted viruses and are substantially more sensitive than most other laboratory-developed and diagnostic ZIKV reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays. Enhancing sensitivities of laboratory-developed and diagnostic assays may be achievable by increasing sample input.
BACKGROUND:Zika virus (ZIKV) has spread rapidly in the Pacific and throughout the Americas and is associated with severe congenital and adult neurologic outcomes. Nucleic acid amplification technology (NAT) assays were developed for diagnostic applications and for blood donor screening on high-throughput NAT systems. We distributed blinded panels to compare the analytical performance of blood screening relative to diagnostic NAT assays. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A 25-member, coded panel (11 half-log dilutions of a 2013 French Polynesia ZIKV isolate and 2015 Brazilian donor plasma implicated in transfusion transmission, and 3 negative controls) was sent to 11 laboratories that performed 17 assays with 2 to 12 replicates per panel member. Results were analyzed for the percentage reactivity at each dilution and by probit analysis to estimate the 50% and 95% limits of detection (LOD50 and LOD95 , respectively). RESULTS:Donor-screening NAT assays that process approximately 500 µL of plasma into amplification reactions were comparable in sensitivity (LOD50 and LOD95 , 2.5 and 15-18 copies/mL) and were approximately 10-fold to 100-fold more sensitive than research laboratory-developed and diagnostic reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction tests that process from 10 to 30 µL of plasma per amplification. Increasing sample input volume assayed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays increased the LODs by 10-fold to 30-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Blood donor-screening ZIKV NAT assays demonstrate similar excellent sensitivities to assays currently used for screening for transfusion-transmitted viruses and are substantially more sensitive than most other laboratory-developed and diagnostic ZIKV reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays. Enhancing sensitivities of laboratory-developed and diagnostic assays may be achievable by increasing sample input.
Authors: Umme-Aiman Halai; Karin Nielsen-Saines; Maria Lopes Moreira; Patricia Carvalho de Sequeira; Jose Paulo Pereira Junior; Andrea de Araujo Zin; James Cherry; Claudia Raja Gabaglia; Stephanie L Gaw; Kristina Adachi; Irena Tsui; Jose Henrique Pilotto; Rita Ribeiro Nogueira; Ana Maria Bispo de Filippis; Patricia Brasil Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lark L Coffey; Patricia A Pesavento; Rebekah I Keesler; Anil Singapuri; Jennifer Watanabe; Rie Watanabe; JoAnn Yee; Eliza Bliss-Moreau; Christina Cruzen; Kari L Christe; J Rachel Reader; Wilhelm von Morgenland; Anne M Gibbons; A Mark Allen; Jeff Linnen; Kui Gao; Eric Delwart; Graham Simmons; Mars Stone; Marion Lanteri; Sonia Bakkour; Michael Busch; John Morrison; Koen K A Van Rompay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ping Ren; Daniel A Ortiz; Ana C B Terzian; Tatiana E Colombo; Mauricio L Nogueira; Nikos Vasilakis; Michael J Loeffelholz Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Wen-Yang Tsai; Han Ha Youn; Carlos Brites; Jih-Jin Tsai; Jasmine Tyson; Celia Pedroso; Jan Felix Drexler; Mars Stone; Graham Simmons; Michael P Busch; Marion Lanteri; Susan L Stramer; Angel Balmaseda; Eva Harris; Wei-Kung Wang Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Gilberto A Santiago; Jesús Vázquez; Sean Courtney; Katia Y Matías; Lauren E Andersen; Candimar Colón; Angela E Butler; Rebecca Roulo; John Bowzard; Julie M Villanueva; Jorge L Muñoz-Jordan Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 14.919