Comparison of two highly automated DNA extraction systems for quantifying Epstein–Barr virus in whole blood

Nucleic Acid Extraction and Enrichment

Nucleic acid extraction is the first step of any amplification experiment no matter what kind of amplification is used to detect a specific pathogen. Efficient nucleic acid extraction is essential to obtain good results using any molecular test. The optimal extraction method should fulfill the following conditions: speed, short working time, cost-effectiveness, high sensitivity and specificity, good reproducibility, and safety. The methods can be divided into solution or column based according to differences of their principles. The automated extraction instruments have many advantages, and these have proven to be very useful. Moreover, in recent years, fully automated instruments combining NA extraction and amplification have been commercially available. However, the method itself does not provide assurance, and the DNA recovery can be different among various kits or instruments that use the similar principles. Therefore, it is important to carefully evaluate the performance of any extraction method used in the clinical microbiology laboratory even though manufacturers may have reported good validation results with specific organisms.

Automated quantification of Epstein-Barr Virus in whole blood of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients using the Abbott m2000 system

BACKGROUND

Accurate quantification of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) load in blood is essential for the management of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders. The automation of DNA extraction and amplification may improve accuracy and reproducibility. We evaluated the EBV PCR Kit V1 with fully automated DNA extraction and amplification on the m2000 system (Abbott assay).

METHODOLOGY

Conversion factor between copies and international units (IU), lower limit of quantification, imprecision and linearity were determined in a whole blood (WB) matrix. Results from 339 clinical WB specimens were compared with a home-brew real-time PCR assay used in our laboratory (in-house assay).

RESULTS

The conversion factor between copies and IU was 3.22 copies/IU. The lower limit of quantification (LLQ) was 1000 copies/mL. Intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation were 3.1% and 7.9% respectively for samples with EBV load higher than the LLQ. The comparison between Abbott assay and in-house assay showed a good concordance (kappa = 0.77). Loads were higher with the Abbott assay (mean difference = 0.62 log10 copies/mL).

SIGNIFICANCE

The EBV PCR Kit V1 assay on the m2000 system provides a reliable and easy-to-use method for quantification of EBV DNA in WB.

Nucleic Acid Extraction Techniques

Since thermostable Taq DNA polymerase was discovered in 1987, nucleic acid amplification techniques have made great strides and contributed greatly to progress in the life sciences. These techniques were introduced into the clinical laboratory and have produced great changes in diagnostic tools and tests. In particular, there have been many innovative molecular testing developments in the field of diagnostic microbiology.

Prospective evaluation of a new automated nucleic acid extraction system using routine clinical respiratory specimens

The aim of the study was to evaluate the MagNA Pure 96™ nucleic acid extraction system using clinical respiratory specimens for identifying viruses by qualitative real‐time PCR assays. Three extraction methods were tested, that is, the MagNA Pure LC™, the COBAS Ampliprep™, and the MagNA Pure 96™ with 10‐fold dilutions of an influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 sample. Two hundred thirty‐nine respiratory specimens, 35 throat swabs, 164 nasopharyngeal specimens, and 40 broncho‐alveolar fluids, were extracted with the MagNA Pure 96™ and the COBAS Ampliprep™ instruments. Forty COBAS Ampliprep™ positive samples were also tested. Real‐time PCRs were used to identify influenza A and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, rhinovirus, enterovirus, adenovirus, varicella zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus. Similar results were obtained on RNA extracted from dilutions of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 with the three systems: the MagNA Pure LC™, the COBAS Ampliprep™, and the MagNA Pure 96™. Data from clinical respiratory specimens extracted with the MagNA Pure 96™ and COBAS Ampliprep™ instruments were in 98.5% in agreement (P < 0.0001) for influenza A and influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. Data for rhinovirus were in 97.3% agreement (P < 0.0001) and in 96.8% agreement for enterovirus. They were in 100% agreement for adenovirus. Data for cytomegalovirus and HSV1‐2 were in 95.2% agreement (P < 0.0001). The MagNA Pure 96™ instrument is easy‐to‐use, reliable, and has a high throughput for extracting total nucleic acid from respiratory specimens. These extracts are suitable for molecular diagnosis with any type of real‐time PCR assay. J. Med. Virol. 84:906–911, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Low risk of hepatitis E virus reactivation after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is an emerging cause of acute hepatitis in industrialized countries. HEV infection can evolve to chronic hepatitis in immunocompromised patients. Additionally, HEV reactivation after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of anti-HEV antibodies in patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in south-western France and the risk of HEV reactivation after transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

We have investigated the prevalence of anti-HEV antibodies in 88 patients who underwent allogenic or autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation with two anti-HEV IgG assays and have evaluated the risk of HEV reactivation in pretransplant seropositive patients by testing for HEV RNA in blood samples collected after stem cell transplantation.

RESULTS

While only 11 patients (12.5%) tested positive for anti-HEV IgG with the Adaltis assay, 32 patients (36.4%) tested positive for anti-HEV IgG with the Wantai assay before transplantation. Three anti-HEV IgG positive patients were also anti-HEV IgM positive. Plasma HEV RNA was negative in all the patients before transplantation. We looked for HEV reactivation in pretransplant seropositive patients by testing 89 blood samples for HEV RNA 1, 3 and 6 months after transplantation. We detected no reactivation. Similarly, we detected no HEV RNA in pretransplant seronegative patients after transplantation.

CONCLUSION

Despite strong immunosuppression, the risk of HEV reactivation after stem cell transplantation appears to be very low.

Comparison of commercial extraction systems and PCR assays for quantification of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load in whole blood

The automation of DNA extraction and the use of commercial quantitative real-time PCR assays could help obtain more reliable results for the quantification of Epstein-Barr virus DNA loads (EBV VL). This study compared two automated extraction platforms and two commercial PCRs for measurement of EBV VL in 10 EBV specimens from Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD) and in 200 whole-blood (WB) specimens from transplant (n = 137) and nontransplant (n = 63) patients. The WB specimens were extracted using the QIAcube or MagNA Pure instrument; VL were quantified with the EBV R-gene quantification kit (Argene) or the artus EBV RG PCR kit (Qiagen) on the Rotor-Gene 6000 real-time analyzer; and the results were compared with those of a laboratory-developed PCR. DNA was extracted from the QCMD specimens by use of the QIAamp DNA minikit and was quantified by the three PCR assays. The extraction platforms and the PCR assays showed good correlation (R, >0.9; P, <0.0001), but as many as 10% discordant results were observed, mostly for low viral loads (<3 log(10) copies/ml), and standard deviations reached as high as 0.49 log(10) copy/ml. In WB but not in QCMD samples, Argene PCR tended to give higher VL values than artus PCR or the laboratory-developed PCR (mean difference for the 200 WB VL, -0.42 or -0.36, respectively). In conclusion, the two automated extraction platforms and the two PCRs provided reliable and comparable VL results, but differences greater than 0.5 log(10) copy/ml remained between the two commercial PCRs after common DNA extraction.

Comparison of QIAsymphony automated and QIAamp manual DNA extraction systems for measuring Epstein-Barr virus DNA load in whole blood using real-time PCR

Automated and manual extraction systems have been used with real-time PCR for quantification of Epstein-Barr virus [human herpesvirus 4 (HHV-4)] DNA in whole blood, but few studies have evaluated relative performances. In the present study, the automated QIAsymphony and manual QIAamp extraction systems (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) were assessed using paired aliquots derived from clinical whole-blood specimens and an in-house, real-time PCR assay. The detection limits using the QIAsymphony and QIAamp systems were similar (270 and 560 copies/mL, respectively). For samples estimated as having ≥10,000 copies/mL, the intrarun and interrun variations were significantly lower using QIAsymphony (10.0% and 6.8%, respectively), compared with QIAamp (18.6% and 15.2%, respectively); for samples having ≤1000 copies/mL, the two variations ranged from 27.9% to 43.9% and were not significantly different between the two systems. Among 68 paired clinical samples, 48 pairs yielded viral loads ≥1000 copies/mL under both extraction systems. Although the logarithmic linear correlation from these positive samples was high (r(2) = 0.957), the values obtained using QIAsymphony were on average 0.2 log copies/mL higher than those obtained using QIAamp. Thus, the QIAsymphony and QIAamp systems provide similar EBV DNA load values in whole blood.

Molecular detection of herpesviruses

In routine molecular diagnostics, detection of herpesviruses has made a major impact. Infection with herpesviruses is indicated by demonstrating the presence of the virus in selected specimens. Rapid and reliable detection of herpesvirus DNA helps to decrease the lethality as well as the sequelae of herpesvirus infection in patients at risk. This chapter discusses specimen types and both laboratory-developed and commercially available assays useful for molecular detection of herpesviruses. To meet the need for reliable laboratory results, it is advisable to employ maximum automated and standardized kits based on reagents and standards of reproducible high quality. In the routine diagnostic laboratory, introduction of IVD/CE and/or FDA-labeled tests is preferred.

Using Epstein-Barr viral load assays to diagnose, monitor, and prevent posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA measurement is being incorporated into routine medical practice to help diagnose, monitor, and predict posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) in immunocompromised graft recipients. PTLD is an aggressive neoplasm that almost always harbors EBV DNA within the neoplastic lymphocytes, and it is often fatal if not recognized and treated promptly. Validated protocols, commercial reagents, and automated instruments facilitate implementation of EBV load assays by real-time PCR. When applied to either whole blood or plasma, EBV DNA levels reflect clinical status with respect to EBV-related neoplasia. While many healthy transplant recipients have low viral loads, high EBV loads are strongly associated with current or impending PTLD. Complementary laboratory assays as well as histopathologic examination of lesional tissue help in interpreting modest elevations in viral load. Circulating EBV levels in serial samples reflect changes in tumor burden and represent an effective, noninvasive tool for monitoring the efficacy of therapy. In high-risk patients, serial testing permits early clinical intervention to prevent progression toward frank PTLD. Restoring T cell immunity against EBV is a major strategy for overcoming PTLD, and novel EBV-directed therapies are being explored to thwart virus-driven neoplasia.

Detection and quantitation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA in EDTA whole blood samples using automated sample preparation and real time PCR

BACKGROUND

Detection and quantitation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA in EDTA whole blood samples has gained significance in the routine diagnostic laboratory.

METHODS

In this study, the analytical and clinical performance of the artus EBV RG PCR kit in conjunction with automated sample preparation on the QIAsymphony SP instrument was evaluated.

RESULTS

When the accuracy of the new test system was tested, all results were found to be within +/-0.5 log(10) unit of the expected panel results. Determination of linearity showed a quasilinear curve over 4 log units. The lower limit of detection was determined to be 391 EBV DNA copies/mL in EDTA whole blood. The between day imprecision ranged from 18% to 66%, and the within run imprecision ranged from 11% to 50%. When clinical samples were tested and the results compared with those obtained with the routinely used easyMAG sample preparation and EBV R-gene test system, 60 samples tested positive and 31 samples tested negative by both assays. Nineteen samples were found to be positive using the QIAsymphony sample preparation and artus EBV RG PCR test system only, and no samples tested positive with the routinely used test system only.

CONCLUSIONS

The QIAsymphony sample preparation and artus EBV RG PCR test system is suitable for the detection and quantitation of EBV DNA in EDTA whole blood in the routine diagnostic laboratory.

Comparative evaluation of a commercially available automated system for extraction of viral DNA from whole blood: application to monitoring of epstein-barr virus and cytomegalovirus load

The NucliSENS easyMAG automated system was compared to the column-based Qiagen method for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) or cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA extraction from whole blood before viral load determination using the corresponding R-gene amplification kits. Both extraction techniques exhibited a total agreement of 81.3% for EBV and 87.2% for CMV.

Comparative evaluation of two automated systems for nucleic acid extraction of BK virus: NucliSens easyMAG versus BioRobot MDx

The objective of this study was to compare the performance of two automated nucleic acid extraction systems. Specifically, the NucliSens easyMAG system (bioMerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), which incorporates magnetic bead technology, was compared with the BioRobot MDx system (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany), which uses a silica membrane-based method of nucleic acid extraction. Nucleic acids from the BK virus (BKV DNA) were extracted from 98 plasma and 57 urine specimens using the Real-Q BKV quantitation kit (Biosewoom, Seoul, Korea). Failed PCR was defined as negative BKV DNA results having more than 36 threshold cycles of the internal control by the manufacturer's instruction. The PCR failure rate of nucleic acids isolated from plasma samples using the MDx system was similar to that of plasma samples processed using the easyMAG system (2.0% and 3.1%, respectively). The PCR failure rate of nucleic acids isolated from urine samples using the MDx system was higher than that of urine samples processed using the easyMAG system (33.3% and 12.5%, respectively). These data suggest that the PCR inhibitors present in urine specimens are removed more efficiently by the easyMAG system. Among amplified specimens, the discordant results obtained from the two systems revealed that the BKV DNA load ranged from 2.3 log10 copies/mL to 4.6 log10 copies/mL. Of the 25 urine specimens that yielded BKV DNA by both extraction systems, 15 specimens (60.0%) yielded higher BKV DNA loads by the easyMAG system, indicating that the easyMAG system extracted nucleic acid more efficiently than did the MDx system. In conclusion, the easyMAG method outperformed the MDx method when used to extract BKV DNA from urine samples. Magnetic bead-based extraction methods such as the easyMAG system are therefore preferable for the quantitation of viral DNA in urine.

Comparison of methods for extraction of viral DNA from cellular specimens

The accuracy and precision of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results depend not only on the PCR reaction but also on the extraction of viral nucleic acid. Although the extraction of viral nucleic acid from fluids has been extensively studied, less data are available regarding extractions from cellular specimens. We therefore evaluated several commercially available kits for the extraction of nucleic acid from cellular specimens. Although the kits generally performed well, there were some differences in extraction efficiency, especially at low numbers of input cells. Inclusion of a multivirus positive control allowed careful monitoring of extraction efficiency during routine clinical use. Laboratories are encouraged to validate extraction methods carefully in the context of the proposed viral testing.