Comparison of 14 molecular assays for detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in Bronchoalveolar Lavage fluid

17Citations
Citations of this article
59Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We compared 14 molecular assays for their ability to detect the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples. Three approaches were followed. First, by using DNA from Mycobacterium bovis BCG, we determined the detection limits of the assays using routine molecular methods. Second, in order to determine the analytical sensitivities of the assays, we added one of four M. tuberculosis isolates with various numbers of the insertion sequence IS6110 to N-Acetyl-L-cysteine (NALC)-NaOH-treated bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples in dilutions of 1:10 to 1:10,000,000. Third, intertest variabilities were measured and defined by the standard deviations for the quantitation cycle (Cq) values of three positive test results per dilution per assay. The 14 assays tested had similar analytical sensitivities, except for GeneXpert, which had an analytical sensitivity that was 10- to 100-fold lower than that of the other assays. TheMPMTB/NTMtest and the in-house TaqMan-10 revealed the best performances for the detection limit and had the highest analytical sensitivities. Most of the tests performed well regarding detection limit and analytical sensitivity for the detection of the M. tuberculosis complex in serial dilutions, and the differences were small. TheMP MTB/NTMand the in-house TaqMan-10 assays revealed the best, and GeneXpert the worst, overall performances. Copyright © 2013, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Akkerman, O. W., Van Der Werf, T. S., De Boer, M., De Beer, J. L., Rahim, Z., Rossen, J. W. A., … Van Der Zanden, A. G. M. (2013). Comparison of 14 molecular assays for detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in Bronchoalveolar Lavage fluid. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 51(11), 3505–3511. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00843-13

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free