| Literature DB >> 29914548 |
Kirsty Thomson1, Tal Yaaran2, Alex Belshaw3, Lucia Curson3, Laurence Tisi3, Sarah Maurice2, Guy Kiddle3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ehrlichiosis is an important emerging infectious disease of the canid family and humans worldwide. To date, no extensive evaluation or validation of a molecular diagnostic test for ehrlichiosis has been published. Here, we present data for a newly designed TaqMan assay and compare its performance to a commercial technology (PCRun®). Both of these real-time methods of analysis were evaluated using a comprehensive number of prospective and retrospective samples collected from dogs exhibiting symptoms of ehrlichiosis.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical validation; Emerging; PCR; PCRun®; Tick-borne
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29914548 PMCID: PMC6006785 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2914-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Comparative phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA- or gltA-coding sequences from accessions harboured within Ehrlichia genomes. GenBank database accession numbers are indicated in the cladogram of all representative species retrieved from GenBank at the time of publication; further information about the accessions used provided in Additional file 1
Fig. 2The specificity of the gltA TaqMan primers were validated in silico by assessing the primer sequence conservation with respect to the multiple alignment of available target sequences. Orange outlined box identifies Ehrlichia canis sequences only
The evaluation of published PCR primer designs recommended for the specific amplification and diagnosis of E. canis. Comparative data for each published PCR primer design with respect to predicted size and detection method used
| Primer name | Target gene | Primer sequence (5′–3′) | Product size (bp) | Detection method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECp28-F |
| ATGAATTGCAAAAAAATTCTTATA | 843 | on-gel | [ |
| ECp28-R | TTAGAAGTTAAATCTTCCTCC | ||||
| CANIS |
| CAATTATTTATAGCCTCTGGCTATAGGA | 413 | on-gel | [ |
| GA1UR | GAGTTTGCCGGGACTTCTTCT | ||||
| 16S-fwd |
| TCGCTATTAGATGAGCCTACGT | 125 | qPCR-SYBR | [ |
| 16S-rev | GAGTCTGGACCGTATCTCAGT | ||||
| EC1 |
| TTATAGCCTCTGGCTATAGG | 501 | Chemiluminescence | [ |
| EC2 | CACTTTTAACTTACTAGTCC | ||||
| DSB-321 |
| TTGCAAAATGATGTCTGAAGATATGAAACA | 350 | TaqMan | [ |
| DSB-E.canis | AGCTAGTGCTGCTTGGGCAACTTTGAGTGAA | ||||
| DSB-671 | GCTGCTCCACCAATAAATGTATCYCCTA | ||||
| Eh_ca_dsb_F |
| AATACTTGGTGAGTCTTCACTCA | 110 | TaqMan | [ |
| Eh_ca_dsb_R | GTTGCTTGTAATGTAGTGCTGC | ||||
| Eh_ca_dsb_P | AAGTTGCCCAAGCAGCACTAGCTGTAC | ||||
| ECF |
| CAGGAGTATATGCCTCCTGA | 509 | on-gel | [ |
| ECR | GTTACTTGGTTTTTCAATTGCC |
Fig. 3The regression analysis for PCRun® and TaqMan amplification from 10-fold serial titrations of cultured Ehrlichia canis genome extracts. The mean Ct (TaqMan) or time to maximum light output (PCRun®) was plotted against the known dilutions and the error bars show the standard deviation around this value. All replicates amplified, except for those marked with an asterisk indicating a single replicate produced a positive signal
Inclusivity and exclusivity of PCRun® Ehrlichia molecular detection kit and gltA TaqMan PCR
| Species | Sample type | Potential for amplification | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCRun ( | TaqMan ( | ||
|
| Whole blood/culture | Yes | Yes |
|
| Cultured | Yes | Yes |
|
| Cultured | Yes | No |
|
| Whole blood | Yes | No |
|
| Whole blood | Yes | No |
|
| Whole blood | Yes | No |
Comparison of PCRun® Canine Ehrlichia Kit to the E. canis gltA TaqMan PCR. Totals of 33 samples from the UK and 215 samples from Israel were assessed in a double-blind study, with statistical analysis performed using MedCalc Software [30] (see Additional file 2: Table S1 and Additional file 3: Table S2 for positivity data)
| UK | Israel | |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | PCRun ( | PCRun ( |
| Test assay | Taqman ( | Taqman ( |
| Total tests | 33 | 215 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Specificity (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Accuracy (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 100 | 100 |
| Prevalence (%) | 42 | 21 |
| False discovery rate | 0 | 0 |
| False positive rate | 0 | 0 |
| False omission rate | 0 | 0 |
| False negative rate | 0 | 0 |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 100 | 100 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0 | 0 |