| Literature DB >> 32357154 |
Michael F Zulch1, Nils Pilotte1,2, Jessica R Grant1, Corrado Minetti3, Lisa J Reimer3, Steven A Williams1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimization of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostics requires the careful selection of molecular targets that are both highly repetitive and pathogen-specific. Advances in both next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies and bioinformatics-based analysis tools are facilitating this selection process, informing target choices and reducing labor. Once developed, such assays provide disease control and elimination programs with an additional set of tools capable of evaluating and monitoring intervention successes. The importance of such tools is heightened as intervention efforts approach their endpoints, as accurate and complete information is an essential component of the informed decision-making process. As global efforts for the control and elimination of both lymphatic filariasis and malaria continue to make significant gains, the benefits of diagnostics with improved analytical and clinical/field-based sensitivities and specificities will become increasingly apparent. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32357154 PMCID: PMC7194414 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Primer/probe sequences and reference information for LDR-targeting and ribosomal sequence-targeting assays used for comparative testing with index assays.
| Forward Primer | Rao et al, 2006 [ | |
| Reverse Primer | ||
| Probe | ||
| Forward Primer | Kamau et al, 2013 [ | |
| Reverse Primer | ||
| Probe |
Primer and probe sequences for the newly described qPCR assays targeting the greatest copy-number tandem repeats.
| Target Species | Forward Primer (5’→3’) | Reverse Primer (5’→3’) | Probe (5’→3’) |
|---|---|---|---|
Results of validation testing for the Wb TR1 assay.
| Species | Source | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Human | Genomic DNA | - |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | + |
Results of validation testing for the Pf TR1 assay.
| Species | Source | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| Genomic DNA | - | |
| DNA Extract of Infected Mosquito | - | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + | |
| Genomic DNA | + |
Reaction efficiencies for each assay utilized during experimental testing.
| Assay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 98.44% | 96.06% | 89.91% | 93.43% |
Comparison of mean Cq values for index and reference assays.
| Difference in Means | Difference in Means | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.81 (±0.14) | 16.67 (±0.09) | 2.86 | 17.76 (±0.06) | 19.13 (±0.18) | 1.37 | |
| 17.11 (±0.09) | 19.92 (±0.03) | 2.81 | 21.14 (±0.19) | 22.51 (±0.10) | 1.37 | |
| 20.41 (±0.08) | 23.20 (±0.05) | 2.79 | 24.61 (±0.06) | 25.85 (±0.08) | 1.25 | |
| 24.06 (±0.17) | 26.95 (±0.18) | 2.88 | 28.36 (±0.02) | 29.23 (±0.19) | 0.87 | |
| 27.10 (±0.31) | 30.32 (±0.14) | 3.22 | 32.06 (±0.36) | 33.16 (±0.43) | 1.11 | |
Fig 1Analytical sensitivities of novel and published assays.
Utilizing serial dilutions of gDNA template for each pathogen of interest, the final concentrations at which the novel (Pf TR1 and Wb TR1) and published (Pf ribosomal and Wb LDR) assays both consistently detected their target templates were identified. Utilizing these concentrations as starting points for each pathogen, a series of doubling dilutions was then created to further titrate the gDNA, and each assay was performed in octuplicate using each titrated standard in the second panel as template. Consistency of amplification for each assay was then plotted as a percentage for both P. falciparum-amplifying assays and both W. bancrofti-amplifying assays.
Comparative testing of field-caught mosquito DNA extracts using the Pf TR1 and Pf ribosomal assays.
| 430 | 7 | 437 | ||
| 25 | 154 | 179 | ||
| 455 | 161 | 616 | ||
Comparative testing of field-caught mosquito DNA extracts using the Wb TR1 and Wb LDR assays.
| 265 | 0 | 265 | ||
| 1 | 170 | 171 | ||
| 266 | 170 | 436 | ||