| Literature DB >> 34164797 |
Seema Shetty1,2,3, Christina Kouskouti4,5, Uwe Schoen6, Nikolaos Evangelatos7,8,9, Shashidhar Vishwanath10,11, Kapaettu Satyamoorthy12, Franz Kainer4, Angela Brand7,13,14.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chlamydial genital infections constitute significant sexually transmitted infections worldwide. The often asymptomatic status of C. trachomatis (CT) infections leads to an increased burden on human reproductive health, especially in middle- and low-income settings. Early detection and management of these infections could play a decisive role in controlling this public health burden. The objective of this review is to provide an insight into the evolution of diagnostic methods for CT infections through the development of new molecular technologies, emphasizing on -omics' technologies and their significance as diagnostic tools both for effective patient management and control of disease transmission.Entities:
Keywords: -omics’; Chlamydia trachomatis; Diagnostics; Genital infections; NAAT; Point of care
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34164797 PMCID: PMC8221097 DOI: 10.1007/s42770-021-00533-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
Comparison of diagnostics in detecting genital infections by C. trachomatis
| Test method | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell culture | 70–85 | 99.9 | • Detection of viable bacteria • Availability of bacteria for genotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility testing | • Stringent collection and transport of specimens • Technically complex • Time-consuming • High cost | Domeika et al. [ Black CM [ |
Antigen detection Methods | |||||
| a) Direct Fluorescent Antibody test | 50–90 | 98–99 | • Visualizing morphology of inclusions • Assessment of quality of specimens | • Expertise in interpretation • Not suitable for large sample size | Black CM [ Gann et al. [ Phillips et al. [ Dereli et al. [ |
| b) Enzyme immunoassay | 65—80 | 97–99 | • Minimal technical skills | • False-positive reactions • Time-consuming | Chernesky [ Clarke et al. [ Gann et al. [ |
| c) Immunochromatography | 20–65 | 97–99 | • Rapid • Easy to perform | • Poor sensitivity | Kelly et al. [ Sabido et al. [ Yin et al. [ |
| Molecular methods | |||||
| a) NAH | 75–85 | 97–99 | • Relatively simple, rapid • Suitable for large specimen numbers | • The requirement of specific instruments • Low sensitivity | Clarke et al. [ LeBar et al. [ Black et al. [ |
| b) NAAT | 84–99 | 92–99 | • High sensitivity • Rapid, accurate • Use of non-invasive specimens | • Expensive • Sophisticated laboratory infrastructure • Well trained personnel | Black et al. [ Harkins et al. [ Gaydos et al. [ |
| c) CBNAAT | 97–100 | 97–100 | • Cartridge-based • Near point-of-care test • Testing extra-genital specimens | • High cost | Gaydos et al. [ Garrett et al. [ |
NAH nucleic acid hybridization, NAAT nucleic acid amplification test, CBNAAT cartridge-based nucleic acid amplification test
Comparison of -omics’ technologies in CT diagnosis
| -omics’ methodology | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genomics | |||
| a) RFLP | • No requirement of chlamydia culture • Rapid, easy to perform technique • Used in epidemiological studies | • Presence of atypical restriction patterns • Low ability to detect mixed infections, genovariants • Analytically difficult | Rawre et al. [ de Vries et al. [ Gao et al. [ |
| b) Hybridization methods (RLBH, RDBH, MSA) | • Ability to detect mixed infections • Utility in epidemiological studies | • Low resolution • Poor detection of genovariants | Rawre et al. [ Huang et al. [ |
| c) Sequencing methods (MLST, MLVA) | • High resolution • Detection of genovariants • Phylogenetic analysis | • Failure to detect mixed infections • Non-interpretable results • Expensive, labor-intensive | Rawre et al. [ Herrmann et al. [ Gravningen et al. [ Peuchant et al. [ |
| d) DNA microarrays | • Rapid • High resolution • Short turn-around-time • Detection of mixed infections • Easier analysis | • Expensive for routine use | Rawre et al. [ Gallo Vaulet et al. [ Christerson et al. [ |
| e) Whole-genome sequencing | • High resolution, accuracy • Detection of mixed infections, genovariants • Generation of large data for understanding diversity, evolution, and antimicrobial resistance | • High cost • Expertise for interpretation • Longer turnaround time | Rawre et al. [ Seth-Smith et al. [ Christiansen et al. [ |
| Transcriptomics | • Detection of altered gene expressions in infected cells • Detection of bacterial viability | • Expensive • Technically difficult • Significance as diagnostic tests to be validated | Hayward et al. [ Zheng et al. [ Janssen et al. [ |
| Proteomics | • Detection of host–pathogen interactions • Rapid | • Significance as diagnostic tests to be validated | Olive et al. [ Østergaard et al. [ |
| Metabolomics | • Markers of active infection • Rapid | • Significance as diagnostic tests to be validated • Expensive | Foschi et al. [ Parolin et al. [ |
RFLP restriction fragment length polymorphism, RLBH reverse line blot hybridization, RDBH reverse dot blot hybridization, MSA microsphere suspension array, MLST multi-locus sequence typing, MLVA multi-locus variable number tandem repeats analysis