A European interlaboratory trial to evaluate the performance of different PCR methods for Mycoplasma bovis diagnosis.
Bovine respiratory disease
Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid
Culture
End-point PCR
Mycoplasma bovis
Real-time PCR
Ring trial
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2019
12 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
03
07
2018
accepted:
25
02
2019
entrez:
15
3
2019
pubmed:
15
3
2019
medline:
2
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several species-specific PCR assays, based on a variety of target genes are currently used in the diagnosis of Mycoplasma bovis infections in cattle herds with respiratory diseases and/or mastitis. With this diversity of methods, and the development of new methods and formats, regular performance comparisons are required to ascertain diagnostic quality. The present study compares PCR methods that are currently used in six national veterinary institutes across Europe. Three different sample panels were compiled and analysed to assess the analytical specificity, analytical sensitivity and comparability of the different PCR methods. The results were also compared, when appropriate, to those obtained through isolation by culture. The sensitivity and comparability panels were composed of samples from bronchoalveolar fluids of veal calves, artificially contaminated or naturally infected, and hence the comparison of the different methods included the whole workflow from DNA extraction to PCR analysis. The participating laboratories used i) five different DNA extraction methods, ii) seven different real-time and/or end-point PCRs targeting four different genes and iii) six different real-time PCR platforms. Only one commercial kit was assessed; all other PCR assays were in-house tests adapted from published methods. The analytical specificity of the different PCR methods was comparable except for one laboratory where Mycoplasma agalactiae was tested positive. Frequently, weak-positive results with Ct values between 37 and 40 were obtained for non-target Mycoplasma strains. The limit of detection (LOD) varied from 10 to 10 With a few exceptions, all methods used routinely in the participating laboratories showed comparable performance, which assures the quality of diagnosis, despite the multiplicity of the methods.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several species-specific PCR assays, based on a variety of target genes are currently used in the diagnosis of Mycoplasma bovis infections in cattle herds with respiratory diseases and/or mastitis. With this diversity of methods, and the development of new methods and formats, regular performance comparisons are required to ascertain diagnostic quality. The present study compares PCR methods that are currently used in six national veterinary institutes across Europe. Three different sample panels were compiled and analysed to assess the analytical specificity, analytical sensitivity and comparability of the different PCR methods. The results were also compared, when appropriate, to those obtained through isolation by culture. The sensitivity and comparability panels were composed of samples from bronchoalveolar fluids of veal calves, artificially contaminated or naturally infected, and hence the comparison of the different methods included the whole workflow from DNA extraction to PCR analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The participating laboratories used i) five different DNA extraction methods, ii) seven different real-time and/or end-point PCRs targeting four different genes and iii) six different real-time PCR platforms. Only one commercial kit was assessed; all other PCR assays were in-house tests adapted from published methods. The analytical specificity of the different PCR methods was comparable except for one laboratory where Mycoplasma agalactiae was tested positive. Frequently, weak-positive results with Ct values between 37 and 40 were obtained for non-target Mycoplasma strains. The limit of detection (LOD) varied from 10 to 10
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
With a few exceptions, all methods used routinely in the participating laboratories showed comparable performance, which assures the quality of diagnosis, despite the multiplicity of the methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30866933
doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-1819-7
pii: 10.1186/s12917-019-1819-7
pmc: PMC6417145
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
86Références
Mol Cell Probes. 1999 Jun;13(3):175-8
pubmed: 10369741
Res Vet Sci. 2003 Apr;74(2):105-12
pubmed: 12589733
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Oct;41(10):4844-7
pubmed: 14532239
Vet Microbiol. 1992 Oct;32(3-4):375-90
pubmed: 1455631
Vet Res. 2004 Mar-Apr;35(2):199-212
pubmed: 15099496
Microbiology. 2005 Feb;151(Pt 2):475-89
pubmed: 15699197
Vet J. 2005 Mar;169(2):268-75
pubmed: 15727920
J Med Microbiol. 2005 Aug;54(Pt 8):731-9
pubmed: 16014426
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005 Nov;17(6):537-45
pubmed: 16475511
Acta Vet Hung. 2006 Dec;54(4):427-35
pubmed: 17278715
Vet Microbiol. 1991 Nov;29(3-4):329-38
pubmed: 1771755
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009 Feb;48(2):210-7
pubmed: 19055628
J Clin Lab Anal. 2009;23(3):145-51
pubmed: 19455629
Vet J. 2010 Dec;186(3):299-303
pubmed: 19926318
Mol Cell Probes. 2010 Oct;24(5):321-3
pubmed: 20561921
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010 Jul;26(2):381-94
pubmed: 20619191
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010 Nov;22(6):956-60
pubmed: 21088183
Vet Rec. 2011 Apr 30;168(17):459-62
pubmed: 21527487
Vaccine. 2011 Jul 26;29(33):5347-54
pubmed: 21664397
J Vet Intern Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;25(4):772-83
pubmed: 21745245
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Jan;95(1):196-205
pubmed: 22192198
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33237
pubmed: 22479374
Vaccine. 2013 Feb 27;31(10):1406-12
pubmed: 23340004
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Oct;51(10):3314-23
pubmed: 23903545
Vet Microbiol. 2015 Aug 31;179(1-2):15-22
pubmed: 25824130
Acta Vet Scand. 2015 Feb 22;57:10
pubmed: 25884203
Infect Genet Evol. 2015 Jul;33:118-26
pubmed: 25913158
Res Vet Sci. 2015 Aug;101:42-9
pubmed: 26267088
J Vet Med Sci. 2017 Mar 18;79(3):517-523
pubmed: 28070089
Microb Drug Resist. 2017 Sep;23(6):799-811
pubmed: 28151090
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 6;12(3):e0173422
pubmed: 28264012
J Vet Intern Med. 2017 May;31(3):954-959
pubmed: 28295570
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Apr 8;13(1):97
pubmed: 28390431
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Jul 13;13(1):221
pubmed: 28705198
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2018 Apr;50(4):875-882
pubmed: 29335921
Vet Microbiol. 2018 Mar;216:60-66
pubmed: 29519526
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 May;65 Suppl 1:91-109
pubmed: 29582590
J Vet Intern Med. 2018 May;32(3):1241-1252
pubmed: 29671903
Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A. 1988 Nov;269(3):331-40
pubmed: 3146169
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1996 Oct;46(4):1093-8
pubmed: 8863441
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jan 1;126(1):91-4
pubmed: 8992938
Mol Cell Probes. 1998 Jun;12(3):161-9
pubmed: 9664578
Methods Mol Biol. 1998;104:37-43
pubmed: 9711638
Methods Mol Biol. 1998;104:127-32
pubmed: 9711648