scholarly journals Single Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction for Comprehensive and Simultaneous Detection of Mutations in Hotspot Regions

10.3791/58051 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Decraene ◽  
Amanda Bortolini Silveira ◽  
Marc Michel ◽  
François-Clément Bidard ◽  
Jean-Yves Pierga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Simultaneous Detection ◽  
Single Droplet ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Detection Of Mutations ◽  
Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction

scholarly journals Digital Droplet PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Resolves Borderline Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Xu ◽  
Timothy Kirtek ◽  
Yan Xu ◽  
Hui Zheng ◽  
Huiyu Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Viral Envelope ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Borderline Cases ◽  
Droplet Pcr ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction

Abstract Objectives The Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 ddPCR Kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories) was the first droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) assay to receive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization approval, but it has not been evaluated clinically. We describe the performance of ddPCR—in particular, its ability to confirm weak-positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) results. Methods We clinically validated the Bio-Rad Triplex Probe ddPCR Assay. The limit of detection was determined by using serial dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in an artificial viral envelope. The ddPCR assay was performed according to the manufacturer’s specifications on specimens confirmed to be positive (n = 48) or negative (n = 30) by an FDA-validated reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction assay on the m2000 RealTime system (Abbott). Ten borderline positive cases were also evaluated. Results The limit of detection was 50 copies/mL (19 of 20 positive). Forty-seven specimens spanning a range of quantification cycles (2.9-25.9 cycle numbers) were positive by this assay (47 of 48; 97.9% positive precent agreement), and 30 negative samples were confirmed as negative (30 of 30; 100% negative percent agreement). Nine of 10 borderline cases were positive when tested in triplicate. Conclusions The ddPCR of SARS-CoV-2 is an accurate method, with superior sensitivity for viral RNA detection. It could provide definitive evaluation of borderline positive cases or suspected false-negative cases.

Comparison of Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (ddPCR) and Real-Time Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) in Detecting Neonatal Invasive Fungal Infections

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-379
Author(s):  
Huitao Li ◽  
Xueyu Chen ◽  
Xiaomei Qiu ◽  
Weimin Huang ◽  
Chuanzhong Yang
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Fungal Isolation ◽  
Blood Samples ◽  
Fungal Strains ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction

Invasive fungal infection (IFI) is the leading cause of death in neonatal patients, yet the diagnosis of IFI remains a major challenge. At present, most IFI laboratory diagnostic methods are based on classical, but limited, methods such as fungal isolation and culture and histopathological examination. Recently, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) technology have been adopted to quantify nucleic-acid identification. In this study, we established qPCR and ddPCR assays for IFI diagnosis and quantification. qPCR and ddPCR were carried out using identical primers and probe for the amplification of 18S rRNA. Assay results for three fungal strains were positive, whereas ten non-fungal strains had negative results, indicating 100% specificity for both ddPCR and qPCR methods. Genomic DNA of Candida albicans was tested after a serial dilution to compare the sensitivity of the two PCR methods. The limit of detection of ddPCR was 3.2 copies/L, which was a ten-fold increase compared with that of the qPCR method (32 copies/L). Blood samples from 127 patients with high-risk factors and clinical symptoms for IFI were collected from a NICU in Shenzhen, China, and analyzed using qPCR and ddPCR. Thirty-four blood samples from neonates had a proven or probable diagnosis of IFI, and 25 of these were positive by qPCR, whereas 30 were positive by ddPCR. Among the 93 blood samples from neonates who had a possible IFI or no IFI, 24 were positive using qPCR, and 7 were positive using ddPCR. In conclusion, ddPCR is a rapid and accurate pan-fungal detection method and provides a promising prospect for IFI clinical screening.

Simultaneous detection of astrovirus, rotavirus, reovirus and adenovirus type I in broiler chicken flocks

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Roussan ◽  
I. Shaheen ◽  
G. Khawaldeh ◽  
W. Totanji ◽  
R. Al-Rifai
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Broiler Chicken ◽  
Simultaneous Detection ◽  
Adenovirus Type ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Type I ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Group I ◽  
Avian Nephritis Virus ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Simultaneous detection of astrovirus, rotavirus, reovirus and adenovirus type I in broiler chicken flocksEnteric diseases cause substantial economic losses to the poultry industry. Astroviruses, rotaviruses, reoviruses, and adenovirus type 1 have been reported as a significant cause of intestinal symptoms in poultry. In the present study, intestinal samples from 70 commercial broiler chicken flocks were examined for the presence of astroviruses, rotavirus, and reovirus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and for the presence of group I adenovirus by polymerase chain reaction. Astroviruses were identified in 38.6% of samples tested. Both avian nephritis virus and chicken astrovirus were identified in the astrovirus positive flocks, where 74.1% of these flocks were positive for only one type of astrovirus, whereas, 25.9% of these flocks were positive for both types of astrovirus. Reoviruses, rotaviruses, and adenoviruses were identified in 21.4, 18.6, and 14.3% of these flocks, respectively. Concomitant infection with two or more viruses in the same flock were also prominent, where 5.7, 5.7, 2.9, 2.9, 1.4, and 1.4% of these flocks were positive with both astrovirus and rotavirus; astrovirus and adenovirus; astrovirus and reovirus; rotavirus and adenovirus; rotavirus and reovirus; and reovirus and adenovirus respectively. Moreover, 4.3 and 2.7% of these flocks were positive for astrovirus, reovirus, and adenovirus; and astrovirus, reovirus, and rotavirus, respectively. Further studies will focus on identifying specific viral factors or subtypes/subgroups associated with disease through pathogenesis studies, economic losses caused by infections and co-infections of these pathogens, and the costs and benefits of countermeasures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document