Dataset Information

Evaluation of qPCR-based assays for leprosy diagnosis directly in clinical specimens.

ABSTRACT: The increased reliability and efficiency of the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) makes it a promising tool for performing large-scale screening for infectious disease among high-risk individuals. To date, no study has evaluated the specificity and sensitivity of different qPCR assays for leprosy diagnosis using a range of clinical samples that could bias molecular results such as difficult-to-diagnose cases. In this study, qPCR assays amplifying different M. leprae gene targets, sodA, 16S rRNA, RLEP and Ag 85B were compared for leprosy differential diagnosis. qPCR assays were performed on frozen skin biopsy samples from a total of 62 patients: 21 untreated multibacillary (MB), 26 untreated paucibacillary (PB) leprosy patients, as well as 10 patients suffering from other dermatological diseases and 5 healthy donors. To develop standardized protocols and to overcome the bias resulted from using chromosome count cutoffs arbitrarily defined for different assays, decision tree classifiers were used to estimate optimum cutoffs and to evaluate the assays. As a result, we found a decreasing sensitivity for Ag 85B (66.1%), 16S rRNA (62.9%), and sodA (59.7%) optimized assay classifiers, but with similar maximum specificity for leprosy diagnosis. Conversely, the RLEP assay showed to be the most sensitive (87.1%). Moreover, RLEP assay was positive for 3 samples of patients originally not diagnosed as having leprosy, but these patients developed leprosy 5-10 years after the collection of the biopsy. In addition, 4 other samples of patients clinically classified as non-leprosy presented detectable chromosome counts in their samples by the RLEP assay suggesting that those patients either had leprosy that was misdiagnosed or a subclinical state of leprosy. Overall, these results are encouraging and suggest that RLEP assay could be useful as a sensitive diagnostic test to detect M. leprae infection before major clinical manifestations.

SUBMITTER: Martinez AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3191141 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of qPCR-based assays for leprosy diagnosis directly in clinical specimens.

Martinez Alejandra Nóbrega AN Ribeiro-Alves Marcelo M Sarno Euzenir Nunes EN Moraes Milton Ozório MO

PLoS neglected tropical diseases 20111011 10

The increased reliability and efficiency of the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) makes it a promising tool for performing large-scale screening for infectious disease among high-risk individuals. To date, no study has evaluated the specificity and sensitivity of different qPCR assays for leprosy diagnosis using a range of clinical samples that could bias molecular results such as difficult-to-diagnose cases. In this study, qPCR assays amplifying different M. leprae gene targets, sod ...[more]

PMID: 22022631

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReal-Time PCR-High Resolution Melting (qPCR-HRM) analysis has been recently described for rapid drug susceptibility testing (DST) of Mycobacterium leprae. The purpose of the current study was to further evaluate the validity, reliability, and accuracy of this assay for M. leprae DST in clinical specimens.Methodology/principal findingsThe specificity and sensitivity for determining the presence and susceptibility of M. leprae to dapsone based on the folP1 drug resistance determining region (DRDR), rifampin (rpoB DRDR) and ofloxacin (gyrA DRDR) was evaluated using 211 clinical specimens from leprosy patients, including 156 multibacillary (MB) and 55 paucibacillary (PB) cases. When comparing the results of qPCR-HRM DST and PCR/direct DNA sequencing, 100% concordance was obtained. The effects of in-house phenol/chloroform extraction versus column-based DNA purification protocols, and that of storage and fixation protocols of specimens for qPCR-HRM DST, were also evaluated. qPCR-HRM results for all DRDR gene assays (folP1, rpoB, and gyrA) were obtained from both MB (154/156; 98.7%) and PB (35/55; 63.3%) patients. All PCR negative specimens were from patients with low numbers of bacilli enumerated by an M. leprae-specific qPCR. We observed that frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues or archival Fite's stained slides were suitable for HRM analysis. Among 20 mycobacterial and other skin bacterial species tested, only M. lepromatosis, highly related to M. leprae, generated amplicons in the qPCR-HRM DST assay for folP1 and rpoB DRDR targets. Both DNA purification protocols tested were efficient in recovering DNA suitable for HRM analysis. However, 3% of clinical specimens purified using the phenol/chloroform DNA purification protocol gave false drug resistant data. DNA obtained from freshly frozen (n = 172), formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues (n = 36) or archival Fite's stained slides (n = 3) were suitable for qPCR-HRM DST analysis. The HRM-based assay was also able to identify mixed infections of susceptible and resistant M. leprae. However, to avoid false positives we recommend that clinical specimens be tested for the presence of the M. leprae using the qPCR-RLEP assay prior to being tested in the qPCR-HRM DST and that all specimens demonstrating drug resistant profiles in this assay be subjected to DNA sequencing.Conclusion/significanceTaken together these results further demonstrate the utility of qPCR-HRM DST as an inexpensive screening tool for large-scale drug resistance surveillance in leprosy.

Project description:BackgroundMalaria is an infectious disease considered as one of the biggest causes of mortality in endemic areas. This life-threatening disease needs to be quickly diagnosed and treated. The standard diagnostic tools recommended by the World Health Organization are thick blood smears microscopy and immuno-chromatographic rapid diagnostic tests. However, these methods lack sensitivity especially in cases of low parasitaemia and non-falciparum infections. Therefore, the need for more accurate and reliable diagnostic tools, such as real-time polymerase chain reaction based methods which have proven greater sensitivity particularly in the screening of malaria, is prominent. This study was conducted at the French National Malaria Reference Centre to assess sensitivity and specificity of two commercial malaria qPCR kits and two in-house developed qPCRs compared to LAMP.Methods183 blood samples received for expertise at the FNMRC were included in this study and were subjected to four different qPCR methods: the Biosynex Ampliquick® Malaria test, the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage test, the in-house HRM and the in-house TaqMan qPCRs. The specificity and sensitivity of each method and their confidence intervals were determined with the LAMP-based assay Alethia® Malaria as the reference for malaria diagnosis. The accuracy of species diagnosis of the Ampliquick® Malaria test and the two in-house qPCRs was also evaluated using the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage test as the reference method for species identification.ResultsThe main results showed that when compared to LAMP, a test with excellent diagnostic performances, the two in-house developed qPCRs were the most sensitive (sensitivity at 100% for the in-house TaqMan qPCR and 98.1% for the in-house HRM qPCR), followed by the two commercial kits: the Biosynex Ampliquick® Malaria test (sensitivity at 97.2%) and the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage (sensitivity at 95.4%). Additionally, with the in-house qPCRs we were able to confirm a Plasmodium falciparum infection in microscopically negative samples that were not detected by commercial qPCR kits. This demonstrates that the var genes of P. falciparum used in these in-house qPCRs are more reliable targets than the 18S sRNA commonly used in most of the developed qPCR methods for malaria diagnosis.ConclusionOverall, these results accentuate the role molecular methods could play in the screening of malaria. This may represent a helpful tool for other laboratories looking to implement molecular diagnosis methods in their routine analysis, which could be essential for the detection and treatment of malaria carriers and even for the eradication of this disease.

Project description:Typhoid cases need to be diagnosed accurately for early antibiotic therapy and reducing mortality. Identification of Salmonella Typhi (S. Typhi) in blood culture is conclusive, but has poor sensitivity. Detection of S. Typhi by PCR from blood sample has shown promise. Real-time quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) has been widely used in diagnostics for its rapidity and reliability. In the present study, the performance of molecular methods like conventional PCR (C-PCR), nested PCR (N-PCR) and Q-PCR were investigated and compared by targeting S. Typhi specific flagellar fliC-d gene directly in blood samples for typhoid diagnosis.Analytical sensitivities and specificities of the PCR assays were determined under laboratory condition followed by diagnostic performances were demonstrated in 110 clinically diagnosed typhoid fever (CDTF) cases included as study subjects. The DNA detection limit of C-PCR was observed 3?×?10(4) copies/reaction; those of N-PCR and Q-PCR (cutoff Ct value, ?37) were 3 copies/reaction. The C-PCR was not further evaluated since it showed negative results with all clinical samples due to low sensitivity. Low isolation rate (21.8 %, 24/110) of S. Typhi by blood culture did not reflect the true burden of typhoid fever among the study subjects. Hence diagnostic performances of N-PCR and Q-PCR were determined considering CDTF cases positive by any of the diagnostic assay methods (n?=?81) as true positives. Laboratory confirmed non-typhoidal cases (n?=?29) were included as true negatives. On comparison, although both the assays were 100 % specific; sensitivity (91.4 % vs. 81.5 %) and efficiency (93.6 % vs. 86.4 %) of Q-PCR were better, but statistically not significant (p?>?0.1) than N-PCR. The positive and negative likelihood ratios of Q-PCR were ? and 0.09 which indicated the potential clinical utility of Q-PCR for typhoid diagnosis. Q-PCR was more rapid than N-PCR (2 h vs. 6 h) in obtaining test results.This study demonstrates for the first time that TaqMan-based Q-PCR assay performs more favorably than N-PCR for direct detection of S. Typhi DNA in blood samples. Direct and quantitative blood Q-PCR is a rapid and reliable method for diagnosis of typhoid fever.

Project description:BackgroundLeprosy is associated with different dermatologic and neurologic manifestations within a wide clinical spectrum, causing a great diagnostic challenge. Therefore, we aimed to examine associations between common presenting symptoms of leprosy and stage at diagnosis.Methodology/principal findingsIn this cross-sectional study, we analyzed population-level data from the Leprosy Management Information System (LEPMIS) in Yunnan, China, from 2010-2020 and enrolled patients with newly detected leprosy. The data of 2125 newly detected leprosy patients, with 5000 symptoms, were analyzed. Numbness (828/5000, 16.56%), erythema (802/5000, 16.04%), Painless nor pruritic skin lesions (651/5000, 13.02%), eyebrow hair loss (467/5000, 9.34%), and tubercles (442/5000, 8.84%) were common symptoms of leprosy. The symptoms related to skin (1935/2533, 76.39%) and leprosy reaction (279/297, 93.94%) were mainly existed in MB group. While the symptoms related to disability (263/316, 83.49%), clinical feature (38/56, 69.09%), and facial features (19/23, 82.61%) were predominantly presented in delayed diagnostic group. Despite low proportions, formic sensation (99/5000, 1.98%), pain (92/5000, 1.84%), pruritus (56/5000, 1.12%), finger contracture (109/5000, 2.18%), muscle atrophy (71/5000, 1.42%), and motor dysfunction (18/5000, 0.36%) were reported during the diagnosis of leprosy. The proportions of skin, skin and nerve, and nerve symptoms as initial symptoms were 33.25%, 44.95%, and 21.80% and as only symptoms were 28.66%, 57.81%, and 13.91%, respectively. In those with physical disability, nerve symptoms were the most frequent symptoms (57.65% and 65.36% for the initial and only symptoms, respectively) compared with skin and skin and nerve symptoms. In the delayed diagnosis group, nerve symptoms were the most frequent symptoms (15.73% and 17.25%) and were associated with the longest diagnostic intervals (mean±SD: 38.88±46.02 and 40.35±49.36 months for initial and only symptoms, respectively) when compared with skin and skin and nerve symptoms.ConclusionsUnderstanding the nature of presenting symptoms and developing symptom awareness campaigns would improve the level of leprosy awareness in the community. As nerve symptoms were related to a higher proportion of physical disability and longer diagnosis interval, we should increase awareness about nerve symptoms. Individuals with nerve symptoms should be considered the target group. Neurology outpatient visits may provide potential screening opportunities, and holding focused training for specialized neurology medical staff would enhance the capacity of the health system to recognize leprosy early.

Project description:BackgroundThe ILEP Nerve Function Impairment in Reaction (INFIR) is a cohort study designed to identify predictors of reactions and nerve function impairment in leprosy. The aim was to study correlations between clinical and histological diagnosis of reactions.Methodology/principal findingsThree hundred and three newly diagnosed patients with World Health Organization multibacillary (MB) leprosy from two centres in India were enrolled in the study. Skin biopsies taken at enrolment were assessed using a standardised proforma to collect data on the histological diagnosis of leprosy, leprosy reactions and the certainty level of the diagnosis. The pathologist diagnosed definite or probable Type 1 Reactions (T1R) in 113 of 265 biopsies from patients at risk of developing reactions whereas clinicians diagnosed skin only reactions in 39 patients and 19 with skin and nerve involvement. Patients with Borderline Tuberculoid (BT) leprosy had a clinical diagnosis rate of reactions of 43% and a histological diagnosis rate of 61%; for patients with Borderline Lepromatous (BL) leprosy the clinical and histological diagnosis rates were 53.7% and 46.2% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis for T1R was 53.1% and 61.9% for BT patients and 61.1% and 71.0% for BL patients. Erythema Nodosum Leprosum (ENL) was diagnosed clinically in two patients but histologically in 13 patients. The Ridley-Jopling classification of patients (n = 303) was 42.8% BT, 27.4% BL, 9.4% Lepromatous Leprosy (LL), 13.0% Indeterminate and 7.4% with non-specific inflammation. This data shows that MB classification is very heterogeneous and encompasses patients with no detectable bacteria and high immunological activity through to patients with high bacterial loads.Conclusions/significanceLeprosy reactions may be under-diagnosed by clinicians and increasing biopsy rates would help in the diagnosis of reactions. Future studies should look at sub-clinical T1R and ENL and whether they have impact on clinical outcomes.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of qPCR-based assays for leprosy diagnosis directly in clinical specimens.

Publications

Evaluation of qPCR-based assays for leprosy diagnosis directly in clinical specimens.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets