| Literature DB >> 32288568 |
Satu Kurkela1,2, David W G Brown1,2.
Abstract
Clinical microbiology laboratories increasingly rely on molecular diagnostic techniques. The various formats of nucleic acid amplification are the most frequently used molecular tests in the diagnosis of infectious diseases. In many clinical settings, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is clearly the method of choice due to its exquisite sensitivity and specificity. Today, many conventional PCR methods are being replaced by real-time PCR, which allows more rapid detection and quantification of the PCR product, as well as detection of different strains of the pathogen by melting curve analysis. The ability to measure the quantity of microbe by quantitative PCR has become increasingly important, providing information on the progression and prognosis of disease, and effectiveness of treatment. Other widely used molecular diagnostic techniques are isothermal amplification methods and nucleic acid hybridization techniques. Microarray is a technique which holds promise and has an exceptional sensitivity and the capacity to detect several pathogens simultaneously. However, microarrays are currently too expensive to be adapted for routine diagnostics, and their diagnostic use requires broad-based nucleic acid amplification prior to analysis which is not well established. Several molecular methods can be used for genotyping, which allows the identification of different subtypes of the pathogen; genotyping plays a role in the risk assessment and management of infections. Clinicians need to recognize the enhanced accuracy and speed of the molecular diagnostic techniques for the diagnosis of infections, but also to understand their limitations. Laboratory results should always be interpreted in the context of the clinical presentation of the patient, and appropriate site, quality, and timing of specimen collection are required for reliable test results.Entities:
Keywords: genotype; mass spectrometry; microarray analysis; nucleic acid amplification techniques; nucleic acid hybridization
Year: 2009 PMID: 32288568 PMCID: PMC7108329 DOI: 10.1016/j.mpmed.2009.07.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Abingdon) ISSN: 1357-3039
Comparison of laboratory methods for direct detection of infections
| Culture | Moderate | > 3 days | Expensive Virus culture expertise disappearing, now little use in clinical laboratories for primary diagnosis Reference activity for antigenic monitoring, e.g. for influenza |
| Electron microscopy | Low | <1 day | Expensive Expertise disappearing, little used clinically Reference tests for ‘new’ infections |
| Antigen detection | Moderate | < 1 day | Laboratory-based tests for HIV, rotavirus available Wider use of point-of-care tests within clinics likely Use in clinical setting requires quality control |
| Direct immunofluorescence | Moderate | <1 day | Moderate cost Still in use for respiratory infections |
| Polymerase chain reaction | High | <1 day | Highly sensitive and specific, moderate cost Most widely used approach in clinical setting Used for quantification to guide treatment and to monitor progress Combined with sequencing to define antiviral sensitivity and for genotyping |
Advantages and disadvantages of different molecular diagnostic techniques
| PCR and its modifications | Suitable for the detection of wide variety of pathogens with various modifications Suitable for a wide variety of specimen materials In comparison to antibody or antigen detection far more sensitive and specific | Specimen contamination will lead to false-positive results More expensive than, e.g., serological methods Requires meticulous working techniques and quality control Requires special facilities and instrumentation |
| Isothermal amplification | In addition to PCR: Very efficient method NASBA is not affected by possible DNA contamination of the sample | In addition to PCR: Expensive |
| Fluorescence | Allows the detection of nucleic acid directly from the sample without prior nucleic acid amplification Low cost Modest technical requirements The technical part of the analysis is quick Laboratory contamination of the sample is not an issue Usually very specific | Poor sensitivity Screening of slides slow, unless an expensive automated microscope is available |
| Genotyping | Suitable for identifying antimicrobial resistance and high-risk strains Direct sequencing provides accurate and extensive data Can be used for phylogenetic analyses | Direct sequencing requires expensive equipment and technical expertise Laborious method |
| Mass spectrometry | Suitable for typing Allows detection of both known and new mutations Very fast compared to DNA sequencing Suitable for analysis of large number of samples | Not suitable for the analysis of long oligonucleotides due to decreased sensitivity Cannot be used for large-scale genomic sequence analysis MALDI is susceptible to metal contaminants |
| Microarrays | Can detect both nucleic acids and antibodies Very good sensitivity Ability to detect several pathogens simultaneously High sample throughput | Too expensive to be adapted for routine diagnostics Usually requires nucleic acid amplification prior to analysis |
PCR: polymerase chain reaction, NASBA: nucleic acid sequence based amplification, MALDI: matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization.
Figure 1Principle of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
Figure 2Principle of nucleic acid sequence-based amplification
Figure 3This example is a modification of a microarray for the detection of human papilloma virus. In this example, biotin-labeled PCR products are hybridized with immobilized oligonucleotides. The chip is incubated in an anti-biotin antibody-conjugated gold nanoparticle solution. The silver enhancement by the gold nanoparticles bound to the biotin precipitates silver metal particles at the chip surfaces. This blocks light irradiated from above, which can be measured, allowing detection and quantitative analysis of the target DNA.