TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms
AU - Johnson, Monique A.
AU - Yoshitomi, Marvin J.
AU - Sue Richards, C.
PY - 2007/7
Y1 - 2007/7
N2 - Multiple cystic fibrosis (CF) testing platforms, using diverse and rapidly evolving technologies, are available to clinical laboratories commercially or for evaluation. Considerations when choosing a CF platform may include: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, signal discrimination, ability to genotype, ability to reflex test, no calls/ repeat rate, composition of mutation panel, hands-on time, start-to-finish time, integration into laboratory workflow, data analysis methods, flexibility regarding custom test design, and required instrumentation. Mindful of these considerations, we evaluated five technologically diverse CF platforms: 1) eSensor, an electronic detection assay system; 2) InPlex, a signal amplification methodology using a microfluidics card; 3) oligonucleotide ligation assay, an electrophoretic-based separation of amplicon-derived ligation-generated products; and two liquid bead arrays; 4) Signature, a direct hybridization assay using allele-specific capture probes; and 5) Tag-It, an assay using allele-specific primer extension and a universal microarray. A core of 150 samples, focusing on mutations in the American College of Medical Genetics/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists mutation panel, was tested throughout several runs for each platform. All of the platforms performed comparably in respect to sensitivity, specificity, and no-call rate. As our results indicate, consideration of all of the parameters evaluated may be useful when selecting the most appropriate platform for the specific setting.
AB - Multiple cystic fibrosis (CF) testing platforms, using diverse and rapidly evolving technologies, are available to clinical laboratories commercially or for evaluation. Considerations when choosing a CF platform may include: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, signal discrimination, ability to genotype, ability to reflex test, no calls/ repeat rate, composition of mutation panel, hands-on time, start-to-finish time, integration into laboratory workflow, data analysis methods, flexibility regarding custom test design, and required instrumentation. Mindful of these considerations, we evaluated five technologically diverse CF platforms: 1) eSensor, an electronic detection assay system; 2) InPlex, a signal amplification methodology using a microfluidics card; 3) oligonucleotide ligation assay, an electrophoretic-based separation of amplicon-derived ligation-generated products; and two liquid bead arrays; 4) Signature, a direct hybridization assay using allele-specific capture probes; and 5) Tag-It, an assay using allele-specific primer extension and a universal microarray. A core of 150 samples, focusing on mutations in the American College of Medical Genetics/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists mutation panel, was tested throughout several runs for each platform. All of the platforms performed comparably in respect to sensitivity, specificity, and no-call rate. As our results indicate, consideration of all of the parameters evaluated may be useful when selecting the most appropriate platform for the specific setting.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548149173&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548149173&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060163
DO - 10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060163
M3 - Article
C2 - 17591940
AN - SCOPUS:34548149173
SN - 1525-1578
VL - 9
SP - 401
EP - 407
JO - Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
JF - Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
IS - 3
ER -