PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 1, 2007Avian Diseases148 citations

Identification of Sensitive and Specific Avian Influenza Polymerase Chain Reaction Methods Through Blind Ring Trials Organized in the European Union

View Full Paper
MSMarek J. SlomkaVCVivien CowardJBJill Banks

Key Result

The use of recommended PCR protocols improved sensitivity and specificity for avian influenza identification and H5/H7 pathotyping among six European Union laboratories compared to their own methods.

Structured PICO

P
Population
Blind ring trials among six European Union laboratories testing 10 clinical specimens and 16 RNA specimens to evaluate avian influenza PCR protocols.
I
Intervention
Recommended PCR protocols (highly sensitive and specific M-gene real-time PCR, and conventional PCRs for H5 and H7 viruses including pathotyping by amplicon sequencing).
C
Comparator
Laboratories' own PCR methods (used in part 1).
O
Outcome
Sensitivity and specificity of avian influenza detection, identification, and pathotyping.surrogate

Standardization of PCR protocols across EU laboratories improved the sensitivity and specificity of avian influenza detection and pathotyping.

Abstract

Many different polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocols have been used for detection and characterization of avian influenza (AI) virus isolates, mainly in research settings. Blind ring trials were conducted to determine the most sensitive and specific AI PCR protocols from a group of six European Union (EU) laboratories. In part 1 of the ring trial the laboratories used their own methods to test a panel of 10 reconstituted anonymized clinical specimens, and the best methods were selected as recommended protocols for part 2, in which 16 RNA specimens were tested. Both panels contained H5, H7, other AI subtypes, and non-AI avian pathogens. Outcomes included verification of 1) generic AI identification by highly sensitive and specific M-gene real-time PCR, and 2) conventional PCRs that were effective for detection and identification of H5 and H7 viruses. The latter included virus pathotyping by amplicon sequencing. The use of recommended protocols resulted in improved results among all six laboratories in part 2, reflecting increased sensitivity and specificity. This included improved H5/H7 identification and pathotyping observed among all laboratories in part 2. Details of these PCR methods are provided. In summary, this study has contributed to the harmonization of AI PCR protocols in EU laboratories and influenced AI laboratory contingency planning following the first European reports of H5N1 highly pathogenic AI during autumn 2005.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Slomka et al. (2007) studied Avian influenza virus detection. Recommended PCR protocols vs. Laboratories' own methods was evaluated on Sensitivity and specificity of AI PCR protocols for generic AI identification and H5/H7 detection. The use of recommended PCR protocols improved sensitivity and specificity for avian influenza identification and H5/H7 pathotyping among six European Union laboratories compared to their own methods.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a5bcdb7c79753f37d04c6a4https://doi.org/10.1637/7674-063006r1.1
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper