A Multi-Laboratory Evaluation of Commercial Monkeypox Molecular Tests
Erster, O.; Levy, I.; Kabat, A.; Mannasse, B.; Levy, V.; Assraf, H.; Azar, R.; Ben-Zvi, H.; Bridenstein, R.; Bunder, O.; Fadeela, a.; Keren-Naus, A.; Peretz, A.; Roif-Kaminsky, D.; Saleh, L.; Schreiber, L.; Schwartz, O.; Shaked-Mishan, P.; Sorek, N.; Strauss, M.; Steinberg, R.; Zisman-Rozen, S.; Treygerman, O.; Yshai, R.; Tejman-Yarden, N.; Mendelson, E.; Sofer, D.
Show abstract
In this report, we describe the first national scale multi-laboratory evaluation of commercial quantitative PCR kits for detection of Monkeypox virus (MPXV) DNA. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two kits by different diagnostic laboratories across Israel. A panel of 10 standardized samples was tested simultaneously using the Novaplex (15 laboratories) and Bio-Speedy (seven laboratories) kits. An in-house assay based on previously published tests was used as reference. Comparison of the results showed high intra-assay consistency between laboratories, with small variations for most samples. The sensitivity of the two kits was similar to that of the in-house assay, with an analytical detection limit of less than ten copies per reaction. Significant differences were observed, however, in the Cq values and relative fluorescence (RF), between the assays. The RF signal of the in-house and Bio-Speedy assay ranged between 5,000 and 10,000 RFU, while the signal in the Novaplex assay was less than 600 RFU. Due to the kit measurement protocol, the Cq values of the Bio-Speedy kit were 5-7.5 cycles lower than those of the In-house assay. On the contrary, the Cq values of the Novaplex kit were significantly higher than those of the in-house assay, with differences of 3-5 cycles per sample. Our results suggest that while all assays were similar in their overall sensitivity, direct comparison of Cq values between them may be misleading. Additionally, the low fluorescence obtained with the Novaplex kit may be problematic with marginal or "noisy" samples. Diagnostic laboratories should therefore consider all these aspects when choosing a specific MPX detection assay.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A one-step real-time RT-PCR assay for simultaneous typing of SARS-CoV-2 mutations associated with the E484K and N501Y spike protein amino-acid substitutions 96%
- Comparison of SARS-CoV2 N gene real-time RT-PCR targets and commercially available mastermixes 95%
- Performance evaluation of TaqMan ™ Arbovirus Triplex Kit (ZIKV/DENV/CHIKV) for detection and differentiation of Dengue and Chikungunya viral RNA in serum samples of symptomatic patients 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral immune flow assay (LIFA) for rapid detection and quantitation of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals 95%
- Evaluating the efficacy of RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 direct approaches in comparison to RNA extraction 95%
- Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professional-collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of three rapid lateral flow antigen detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection 95%
- Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: potential to help reduce community spread? 95%
- Evaluation of a fully automated high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 multiplex qPCR assay with build-in screening functionality for DelHV69/70- and N501Y variants such as B.1.1.7 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Human Biofluids Using the Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay: A Prospective Diagnostic Study in Fortaleza, Brazil 95%
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 95%
- A rapid and cost-effective multiplex ARMS-PCR method for the simultaneous genotyping of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 phylogenetic clades 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.