Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination

Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Anal...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Argy Nicolas [verfasserIn] Nourrisson Céline [verfasserIn] Aboubacar Ahmed [verfasserIn] Poirier Philippe [verfasserIn] Valot Stéphane [verfasserIn] Laude Adrien [verfasserIn] Desoubeaux Guillaume [verfasserIn] Pomares Christelle [verfasserIn] Machouart Marie [verfasserIn] Le Govic Yohann [verfasserIn] Dalle Frédéric [verfasserIn] Botterel Françoise [verfasserIn] Bourgeois Nathalie [verfasserIn] Cateau Estelle [verfasserIn] Leterrier Marion [verfasserIn] Le Pape Patrice [verfasserIn] Morio Florent [verfasserIn] Houze Sandrine [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Parasite - EDP Sciences, 2015, 29, p 5(2022)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:29, p 5 ; year:2022

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1051/parasite/2022003

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ015318060

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ015318060
003	DE-627
005	20240413221055.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1051/parasite/2022003 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ015318060
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC109-216
100	0		\|a Argy Nicolas \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach.
650		4	\|a multiplex pcr
650		4	\|a gastrointestinal protozoa
650		4	\|a molecular approach
650		4	\|a pcr panel
653		0	\|a Infectious and parasitic diseases
700	0		\|a Nourrisson Céline \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Aboubacar Ahmed \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Poirier Philippe \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Valot Stéphane \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Laude Adrien \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Desoubeaux Guillaume \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Pomares Christelle \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Machouart Marie \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Le Govic Yohann \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Dalle Frédéric \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Botterel Françoise \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Bourgeois Nathalie \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Cateau Estelle \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Leterrier Marion \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Le Pape Patrice \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Morio Florent \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Houze Sandrine \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Parasite \|d EDP Sciences, 2015 \|g 29, p 5(2022) \|w (DE-627)527642398 \|w (DE-600)2278575-9 \|x 17761042 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:29, p 5 \|g year:2022
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 29, p 5 \|j 2022

Indexfelder

author_variant	a n an n c nc a a aa p p pp v s vs l a la d g dg p c pc m m mm l g y lgy d f df b f bf b n bn c e ce l m lm l p p lpp m f mf h s hs
matchkey_str	article:17761042:2022----::eetnautpepraefrcuaeoeuadanssfnetnlrtsscmaaietdoallxegngiprtidaeoenr
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1051/parasite/2022003 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015318060 (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC109-216 Argy Nicolas verfasserin aut Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach. multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel Infectious and parasitic diseases Nourrisson Céline verfasserin aut Aboubacar Ahmed verfasserin aut Poirier Philippe verfasserin aut Valot Stéphane verfasserin aut Laude Adrien verfasserin aut Desoubeaux Guillaume verfasserin aut Pomares Christelle verfasserin aut Machouart Marie verfasserin aut Le Govic Yohann verfasserin aut Dalle Frédéric verfasserin aut Botterel Françoise verfasserin aut Bourgeois Nathalie verfasserin aut Cateau Estelle verfasserin aut Leterrier Marion verfasserin aut Le Pape Patrice verfasserin aut Morio Florent verfasserin aut Houze Sandrine verfasserin aut In Parasite EDP Sciences, 2015 29, p 5(2022) (DE-627)527642398 (DE-600)2278575-9 17761042 nnns volume:29, p 5 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 kostenfrei https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 29, p 5 2022
spelling	10.1051/parasite/2022003 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015318060 (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC109-216 Argy Nicolas verfasserin aut Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach. multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel Infectious and parasitic diseases Nourrisson Céline verfasserin aut Aboubacar Ahmed verfasserin aut Poirier Philippe verfasserin aut Valot Stéphane verfasserin aut Laude Adrien verfasserin aut Desoubeaux Guillaume verfasserin aut Pomares Christelle verfasserin aut Machouart Marie verfasserin aut Le Govic Yohann verfasserin aut Dalle Frédéric verfasserin aut Botterel Françoise verfasserin aut Bourgeois Nathalie verfasserin aut Cateau Estelle verfasserin aut Leterrier Marion verfasserin aut Le Pape Patrice verfasserin aut Morio Florent verfasserin aut Houze Sandrine verfasserin aut In Parasite EDP Sciences, 2015 29, p 5(2022) (DE-627)527642398 (DE-600)2278575-9 17761042 nnns volume:29, p 5 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 kostenfrei https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 29, p 5 2022
allfields_unstemmed	10.1051/parasite/2022003 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015318060 (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC109-216 Argy Nicolas verfasserin aut Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach. multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel Infectious and parasitic diseases Nourrisson Céline verfasserin aut Aboubacar Ahmed verfasserin aut Poirier Philippe verfasserin aut Valot Stéphane verfasserin aut Laude Adrien verfasserin aut Desoubeaux Guillaume verfasserin aut Pomares Christelle verfasserin aut Machouart Marie verfasserin aut Le Govic Yohann verfasserin aut Dalle Frédéric verfasserin aut Botterel Françoise verfasserin aut Bourgeois Nathalie verfasserin aut Cateau Estelle verfasserin aut Leterrier Marion verfasserin aut Le Pape Patrice verfasserin aut Morio Florent verfasserin aut Houze Sandrine verfasserin aut In Parasite EDP Sciences, 2015 29, p 5(2022) (DE-627)527642398 (DE-600)2278575-9 17761042 nnns volume:29, p 5 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 kostenfrei https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 29, p 5 2022
allfieldsGer	10.1051/parasite/2022003 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015318060 (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC109-216 Argy Nicolas verfasserin aut Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach. multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel Infectious and parasitic diseases Nourrisson Céline verfasserin aut Aboubacar Ahmed verfasserin aut Poirier Philippe verfasserin aut Valot Stéphane verfasserin aut Laude Adrien verfasserin aut Desoubeaux Guillaume verfasserin aut Pomares Christelle verfasserin aut Machouart Marie verfasserin aut Le Govic Yohann verfasserin aut Dalle Frédéric verfasserin aut Botterel Françoise verfasserin aut Bourgeois Nathalie verfasserin aut Cateau Estelle verfasserin aut Leterrier Marion verfasserin aut Le Pape Patrice verfasserin aut Morio Florent verfasserin aut Houze Sandrine verfasserin aut In Parasite EDP Sciences, 2015 29, p 5(2022) (DE-627)527642398 (DE-600)2278575-9 17761042 nnns volume:29, p 5 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 kostenfrei https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 29, p 5 2022
allfieldsSound	10.1051/parasite/2022003 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015318060 (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC109-216 Argy Nicolas verfasserin aut Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach. multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel Infectious and parasitic diseases Nourrisson Céline verfasserin aut Aboubacar Ahmed verfasserin aut Poirier Philippe verfasserin aut Valot Stéphane verfasserin aut Laude Adrien verfasserin aut Desoubeaux Guillaume verfasserin aut Pomares Christelle verfasserin aut Machouart Marie verfasserin aut Le Govic Yohann verfasserin aut Dalle Frédéric verfasserin aut Botterel Françoise verfasserin aut Bourgeois Nathalie verfasserin aut Cateau Estelle verfasserin aut Leterrier Marion verfasserin aut Le Pape Patrice verfasserin aut Morio Florent verfasserin aut Houze Sandrine verfasserin aut In Parasite EDP Sciences, 2015 29, p 5(2022) (DE-627)527642398 (DE-600)2278575-9 17761042 nnns volume:29, p 5 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 kostenfrei https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 29, p 5 2022
language	English
source	In Parasite 29, p 5(2022) volume:29, p 5 year:2022
sourceStr	In Parasite 29, p 5(2022) volume:29, p 5 year:2022
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel Infectious and parasitic diseases
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Parasite
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Argy Nicolas @@aut@@ Nourrisson Céline @@aut@@ Aboubacar Ahmed @@aut@@ Poirier Philippe @@aut@@ Valot Stéphane @@aut@@ Laude Adrien @@aut@@ Desoubeaux Guillaume @@aut@@ Pomares Christelle @@aut@@ Machouart Marie @@aut@@ Le Govic Yohann @@aut@@ Dalle Frédéric @@aut@@ Botterel Françoise @@aut@@ Bourgeois Nathalie @@aut@@ Cateau Estelle @@aut@@ Leterrier Marion @@aut@@ Le Pape Patrice @@aut@@ Morio Florent @@aut@@ Houze Sandrine @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	527642398
id	DOAJ015318060
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ015318060</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413221055.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1051/parasite/2022003</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ015318060</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC109-216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Argy Nicolas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">multiplex pcr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">gastrointestinal protozoa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">molecular approach</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pcr panel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Infectious and parasitic diseases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nourrisson Céline</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aboubacar Ahmed</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Poirier Philippe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Valot Stéphane</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Laude Adrien</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Desoubeaux Guillaume</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pomares Christelle</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Machouart Marie</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Le Govic Yohann</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dalle Frédéric</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Botterel Françoise</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bourgeois Nathalie</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cateau Estelle</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Leterrier Marion</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Le Pape Patrice</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Morio Florent</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Houze Sandrine</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Parasite</subfield><subfield code="d">EDP Sciences, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">29, p 5(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)527642398</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2278575-9</subfield><subfield code="x">17761042</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:29, p 5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">29, p 5</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Argy Nicolas
spellingShingle	Argy Nicolas misc RC109-216 misc multiplex pcr misc gastrointestinal protozoa misc molecular approach misc pcr panel misc Infectious and parasitic diseases Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
authorStr	Argy Nicolas
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)527642398
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC109-216
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	17761042
topic_title	RC109-216 Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination multiplex pcr gastrointestinal protozoa molecular approach pcr panel
topic	misc RC109-216 misc multiplex pcr misc gastrointestinal protozoa misc molecular approach misc pcr panel misc Infectious and parasitic diseases
topic_unstemmed	misc RC109-216 misc multiplex pcr misc gastrointestinal protozoa misc molecular approach misc pcr panel misc Infectious and parasitic diseases
topic_browse	misc RC109-216 misc multiplex pcr misc gastrointestinal protozoa misc molecular approach misc pcr panel misc Infectious and parasitic diseases
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Parasite
hierarchy_parent_id	527642398
hierarchy_top_title	Parasite
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)527642398 (DE-600)2278575-9
title	Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ015318060 (DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2
title_full	Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
author_sort	Argy Nicolas
journal	Parasite
journalStr	Parasite
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Argy Nicolas Nourrisson Céline Aboubacar Ahmed Poirier Philippe Valot Stéphane Laude Adrien Desoubeaux Guillaume Pomares Christelle Machouart Marie Le Govic Yohann Dalle Frédéric Botterel Françoise Bourgeois Nathalie Cateau Estelle Leterrier Marion Le Pape Patrice Morio Florent Houze Sandrine
container_volume	29, p 5
class	RC109-216
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Argy Nicolas
doi_str_mv	10.1051/parasite/2022003
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	selecting a multiplex pcr panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of allplex® (seegene®), g-diaparatrio (diagenode®), and rida®gene (r-biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
callnumber	RC109-216
title_auth	Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
abstract	Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach.
abstractGer	Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach.
abstract_unstemmed	Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination
url	https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003 https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2 https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042
remote_bool	true
author2	Nourrisson Céline Aboubacar Ahmed Poirier Philippe Valot Stéphane Laude Adrien Desoubeaux Guillaume Pomares Christelle Machouart Marie Le Govic Yohann Dalle Frédéric Botterel Françoise Bourgeois Nathalie Cateau Estelle Leterrier Marion Le Pape Patrice Morio Florent Houze Sandrine
author2Str	Nourrisson Céline Aboubacar Ahmed Poirier Philippe Valot Stéphane Laude Adrien Desoubeaux Guillaume Pomares Christelle Machouart Marie Le Govic Yohann Dalle Frédéric Botterel Françoise Bourgeois Nathalie Cateau Estelle Leterrier Marion Le Pape Patrice Morio Florent Houze Sandrine
ppnlink	527642398
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1051/parasite/2022003
callnumber-a	RC109-216
up_date	2024-07-03T14:16:18.234Z
_version_	1803567684111040512
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ015318060</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413221055.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1051/parasite/2022003</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ015318060</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC109-216</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Argy Nicolas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Commercial multiplex PCR assay panels were developed to overcome the limitations of microscopic examination for parasitological diagnosis on stool samples. However, given the increased supply of this diagnostic approach, these assays must be evaluated to position them in a diagnostic algorithm. Analytical performances of the multiplex PCR assay G-DiaParaTrio, Allplex® GI parasite and RIDA®GENE parasitic stool panel for detecting Blastocystis sp., Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were assessed through a retrospective comparative study on 184 stool samples initially sent for parasitological investigation. The composite reference method for parasitological diagnosis was microscopic observation and Entamoeba histolytica-specific adhesion detection when necessary. Multiplex PCR assays were performed on extracted DNA from each stool, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Discrepant results with the composite reference method were investigated with species-specific PCR to approach a final parasitological diagnosis. Overall sensitivity/specificity for the multiplex PCR assays was 93.2%/100% for G-DiaParaTrio, 96.5%/98.3% for Allplex® GI parasite and 89.6%/98.3% for RIDA®GENE, whereas the composite reference method presented an overall sensitivity/specificity of 59.6%/99.8%. These results confirmed the added diagnostic value of the multiplex PCR approach for gastrointestinal protists. Nevertheless, the PCR procedure and the analytical performance for each protist of interest, variable depending on the multiplex PCR assay, must be considered when implementing a PCR-based diagnostic approach.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">multiplex pcr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">gastrointestinal protozoa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">molecular approach</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pcr panel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Infectious and parasitic diseases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nourrisson Céline</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aboubacar Ahmed</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Poirier Philippe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Valot Stéphane</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Laude Adrien</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Desoubeaux Guillaume</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pomares Christelle</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Machouart Marie</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Le Govic Yohann</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dalle Frédéric</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Botterel Françoise</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bourgeois Nathalie</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cateau Estelle</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Leterrier Marion</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Le Pape Patrice</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Morio Florent</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Houze Sandrine</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Parasite</subfield><subfield code="d">EDP Sciences, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">29, p 5(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)527642398</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2278575-9</subfield><subfield code="x">17761042</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:29, p 5</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2022003</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f6e668f72f664826869f40568f635ce2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.parasite-journal.org/articles/parasite/full_html/2022/01/parasite210131/parasite210131.html</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1776-1042</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">29, p 5</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4017096

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Selecting a multiplex PCR panel for accurate molecular diagnosis of intestinal protists: a comparative study of Allplex® (Seegene®), G-DiaParaTrio (Diagenode®), and RIDA®GENE (R-Biopharm®) assays and microscopic examination

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?