Comparison of Anyplex II RV16 with the xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel and Seeplex RV15 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses
Comparison of Anyplex II RV16 with the xTAG Respiratory Viral Panel and Seeplex RV15 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses
复制标题
DOI：
10.1128/jcm.02958-12
复制
发表时间：
2013-04-01
影响因子：
9.4
通讯作者：
Kim, Mi-Na
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kim, Hyun-Ki;Oh, Sung-Hee;Kim, Mi-Na
一种新的多重实时PCR方法(Anyplex II RV16[RV16]；Seegene，韩国)与多重终点PCR试剂盒(Seeplex RV15 ACE检测试剂盒[RV15]；Seegene)和基于液体微珠的检测方法(xTAG呼吸道病毒小组[xTAG]；雅培，美国)进行了比较。在送检的鼻咽拭子或抽吸物和支气管肺泡灌洗液标本中，199份回顾性收集的阳性标本和283份前瞻性收集的标本进一步用RV16和xTAG进行了检测。真阳性结果定义为所有三种方法或RV16和xTAG或RV15和xTAG的阳性结果。对于结果不一致的标本，进行单链聚合酶链式反应和靶病毒测序。总共有300份病毒阳性样本产生了386种病毒。排除博卡病毒检测结果后，RV16、RV15和XTAG的总敏感性分别为95.2%、93.3%和87.2%(95%可信区间分别为93.0~97.4%、90.8~95.8%和83.8~90.6%)。RV16对冠状病毒OC43/HKU1和腺病毒的敏感度分别为100%和79.5%，对鼻病毒和肠道病毒的敏感度分别为89.4%和97.9%，对冠状病毒OC43/HKU1和腺病毒的敏感度分别为100%和79.5%。RV16比RV15对腺病毒检测的敏感性更高(100%比82.1%；P<；0.05)。3种方法的特异性均在98.6%~100%之间。对鼻病毒阳性标本的测序分析表明，RV16准确区分了鼻病毒和肠道病毒。RV16最常漏诊鼻病毒C。结论：RV16的总体敏感性好于XTAG。然而，需要提高对鼻病毒的敏感性。
A novel multiplex real-time PCR approach (Anyplex II RV16 [RV16]; Seegene, South Korea) was compared with a multiplex end-point PCR kit (Seeplex RV15 ACE detection kit [RV15]; Seegene) and a liquid bead-based assay (xTAG respiratory viral panel [xTAG]; Abbott, United States). Of nasopharyngeal swabs or aspirates and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples submitted for RV15 testing, 199 retrospectively collected positive specimens and 283 prospectively collected specimens were further tested with RV16 and xTAG. A true-positive result was defined as a positive result from all three methods or RV16 and xTAG or RV15 and xTAG. For specimens with discrepant results, monoplex PCR and sequencing of the target viruses were performed. In total, 300 virus-positive specimens yielded 386 viruses. When the bocavirus results were excluded, the overall sensitivities of RV16, RV15, and xTAG were 95.2%, 93.3%, and 87.2%, respectively (95% confidence intervals, 93.0 to 97.4%, 90.8 to 95.8%, and 83.8 to 90.6%, respectively). RV16 was more sensitive than xTAG for coronavirus OC43/HKU1 (100% versus 26.1%; P < 0.0001) and adenovirus (100% versus 79.5%; P < 0.01) but was less sensitive than xTAG for rhinovirus/enterovirus (89.4% versus 97.9%; P < 0.05). RV16 demonstrated higher sensitivity than RV15 for the detection of adenovirus (100% versus 82.1%; P < 0.05). The specificities of all three methods ranged from 98.6% to 100%. Sequencing analysis of 64 rhinovirus-positive samples revealed that RV16 accurately differentiated between rhinovirus and enterovirus. RV16 most frequently missed rhinovirus C. In conclusion, the overall sensitivity of RV16 was better than that of xTAG. However, improvement of the sensitivity for rhinovirus is required.