SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gülhane Tıp Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 2

The comparative results of three different real-time PCR assays: MY09/11 primers failed to detect multiple infections

Üç Farklı Real-Time PCR Testinin Karşılaştırmalı Sonuçları: MY09/11 Primerleri Çoklu Enfeksiyonları Kaçırıyor

FATİH ŞAHİNER
Kenan ŞENER
RAMAZAN GÜMRAL
Mehmet YAPAR
Murat DEDE
Nuri YİĞİT
Ayhan KUBAR
Pages
65–70
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We conclude that highly sensitive type-specific PCR tests may be a useful tool for screening of cervical cancer.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:HPV-DNA testing is widely used worldwide today and it has become an important part of cervical cancer screening programs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is re-evaluating the effectiveness of MY09/11 consensus primer system, which is one of the most widely used HPVDNA tests, by using a different approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We conclude that highly sensitive type-specific PCR tests may be a useful tool for screening of cervical cancer.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:470 samples
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

HPV-DNA testing is widely used worldwide today and it has become an important part of cervical cancer screening programs. The aim of this study is re-evaluating the effectiveness of MY09/11 consensus primer system, which is one of the most widely used HPVDNA tests, by using a different approach. In this study, MY09/11 consensus PCR and two different TaqMan-based type-specific PCR assays were used for investigation of the presence of 17 different HPV types in cervical smear samples. Of the 470 samples, 33.2% (156/470) were HPV-DNA positive by at least one of the three methods and remains were negative by all methods. A total of 220 different HPV isolates were identified in 149 samples by the type specific PCR, while the nine samples were positive by consensus PCR only. A single HPV type was detected in 64.4% (96/149) of the genotyped samples, and multiple HPV types were detected in the remaining 35.6% (53/149). MY09/11 PCR failed to detect 21.2% (33/156) of all HPV-DNA positive samples and the rates of false negative results were 18.75% (18/96) and 28.3% (15/53) in single and multiple infections, respectively. We conclude that highly sensitive type-specific PCR tests may be a useful tool for screening of cervical cancer.

Özet

Dünya genelinde yaygın olarak kullanılan HPV-DNA testleri günümüzde servikal kanser tarama programlarının önemli bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı yaygın olarak kullanılan HPV-DNA testlerinden biri olan MY09/11 konsensus PCR'ın etkinliğini farklı bir yaklaşımla yeniden değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışmada, servikal smear örneklerinde MY09/11 PCR ve TaqMan-temelli iki ayrı tip spesifik PCR testi ile 17 farklı HPV tipinin varlığı araştırıldı. Çalışmaya dahil edilen 470 servikal smear örneğinin %33,2'si (156/470) üç yöntemden en az biri ile pozitif olarak değerlendirilirken, geriye kalan örnekler tüm yöntemler ile negatif olarak değerlendirildi. Tip spesifik PCR testleri ile pozitiflik saptanan 149 örnekte 220 farklı HPV izolatı identifiye edilirken, 9 örnek sadece konsensus PCR ile pozitif bulundu. Tiplendirme analizlerinin başarılı olarak yapıldığı örneklerin %64,4'ünde (96/149) tekli enfeksiyon ve %35,6'sında (53/149) çoklu enfeksiyon varlığı saptandı. MY09/11 PCR HPV-DNA pozitif örneklerin %21,2'sini (33/156) tespit edemezken, tekli ve çoklu enfeksiyonları kaçırma oranları sırasıyla %18,75(18/96) ve %28,3(15/53) olarak bulundu. Yüksek duyarlılığa sahip tip spesifik PCR testlerinin servikal kanser taramaları için güvenilir araçlar olabileceğini düşünmekteyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHİNER, F., ŞENER, K., GÜMRAL, R., YAPAR, M., DEDE, M., YİĞİT, N., KUBAR, A. (2014). The comparative results of three different real-time PCR assays: MY09/11 primers failed to detect multiple infections. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 2, 65–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/211763

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Conway MJ, Meyers C. Replication and Assembly of Human Papillomaviruses. J Dent Res 2009; 88(4): 307-17. de Villiers EM, Fauquet C, Broker TR, Bernard HU, zur Hausen H. Classification of papillomaviruses. Virology 2004; 324(1): 17-27. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348(6): 518-27.
  2. Psyrri A, DiMaio D. Human papillomavirus in cervical and head-and-neck cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008; 5(1): 24-31. zur Hausen H. Roots and perspectives of contemporary papillomavirus research. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1996; 122(1): 3-13.
  3. Nindl I, Rindfleisch K, Lotz B, Schneider A, Dürst M. Uniform distribution of HPV 16 E6 and E7 variants in patients with normal histology, cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 1999; 82(2): 203-7.
  4. Molijn A, Kleter B, Quint W, van Doorn LJ. Molecular diagnosis of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections. J Clin Virol 2005; 32 (Suppl 1): S43-51. Gravitt PE, Viscidi RP. Measurement of Exposure to Human Papillomaviruses. In: Rohan TE, Shah KV (eds). Cervical Cancer: From Etiology to Prevention (Cancer Prevention-Cancer Causes). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004: Chapter 5; 119-41.
  5. Gravitt PE, Peyton CL, Alessi TQ, et al. Improved Amplification of Genital Human Papillomaviruses. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38(1): 357-61. Kleter B, van Doorn LJ, Schrauwen L, et al. Development and clinical evaluation of a highly sensitive PCR-reverse hybridization line probe assay for detection and identification of anogenital human papillomavirus. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37(8): 2508-17.
  6. Qi SZ, Wang QQ, Tan Y,et al. Genotyping of genital human papillomavirus by DNA sequencing and luminex methods. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao 2007; 29(2): 181-5.
  7. Shen-Gunther J, Rebeles J. Genotyping human papillomaviruses: development and evaluation of a comprehensive DNA microarray. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 128(3): 433-41.
  8. Depuydt CE, Boulet GA, Horvath CA, Benoy IH, Vereecken AJ, Bogers JJ. Comparison of MY09/11 consensus PCR and type-specific PCRs in the detection of oncogenic HPV types. J Cell Mol Med 2007; 11(4): 881-91.
  9. Şahiner F, Gümral R, Şener K ve ark. Servikal Sürüntü Örneklerinde İki Farklı Yöntemle HPV-DNA Varlığının Araştırılması: MY09/11 Konsensus PCR ve Tipe Özgül Gerçek Zamanlı PCR. Mikrobiyol Bul 2012; 46(4): 624-36.
  10. Dictor M, Warenholt J. Single-tube multiplex PCR using type-specific E6/E7 primers and capillary ele