A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms

Monique A. Johnson, Marvin J. Yoshitomi, C. Sue Richards

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations


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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-407
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Molecular Diagnostics
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jul 2007

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Molecular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this