Inter-laboratory assessment of different digital PCR platforms for quantification of human cytomegalovirus DNA

Abstract

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) is an important tool in pathogen detection. However, the use of different qPCR components, calibration materials and DNA extraction methods reduces comparability between laboratories, which can result in false diagnosis and discrepancies in patient care. The wider establishment of a metrological framework for nucleic acid tests could improve the degree of standardisation of pathogen detection and the quantification methods applied in the clinical context. To achieve this, accurate methods need to be developed and implemented as reference measurement procedures, and to facilitate characterisation of suitable certified reference materials. Digital PCR (dPCR) has already been used for pathogen quantification by analysing nucleic acids. Although dPCR has the potential to provide robust and accurate quantification of nucleic acids, further assessment of its actual performance characteristics is needed before it can be implemented in a metrological framework, and to allow adequate estimation of measurement uncertainties. Here, four laboratories demonstrated reproducibility (expanded measurement uncertainties below 15%) of dPCR for quantification of DNA from human cytomegalovirus, with no calibration to a common reference material. Using whole-virus material and extracted DNA, an intermediate precision (coefficients of variation below 25%) between three consecutive experiments was noted. Furthermore, discrepancies in estimated mean DNA copy number concentrations between laboratories were less than twofold, with DNA extraction as the main source of variability. These data demonstrate that dPCR offers a repeatable and reproducible method for quantification of viral DNA, and due to its satisfactory performance should be considered as candidate for reference methods for implementation in a metrological framework.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00216-017-0206-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A SARS-CoV-2 Reference Standard Quantified by Multiple Digital PCR Platforms for Quality Assessment of Molecular Tests

“…We adopted a multiplatform strategy to achieve accurate quantification of the SARS-CoV-2 reference standard candidate. 18 , 19 We hypothesized that platforms and assays with different properties such as precision and accuracy of droplet volume, number of effective droplets, or assay threshold for distinguishing positive and negative reactions would introduce supplier-dependent systematic errors into the measurements. Therefore, we included a variety of dPCR platforms and service laboratories in this study.…”

Critical assessment of digital PCR for the detection and quantification of genetically modified organisms

“…The most recent study [82] not only showed that the volume of droplets is significantly lower but also that the volume of droplets is affected by type of super mix (for probes or EvaGreen) and the type of droplet generator (manual or automated). More interestingly, when Bio-Rad’s default droplet volume was used at NIB, lower absolute target concentrations were determined by ddPCR (Bio-Rad) compared with cdPCR (Biomark HD) not only for GMO samples (unpublished data) but also for other samples, such as human cytomegalovirus [83]. The values obtained with the ddPCR and cdPCR platforms were much closer when correction-factor-based measurement was performed [82].…”

Molecular diagnostics in the clinical microbiology laboratory

“…Absolute quantitation of pathogen DNA performed by dPCR offers significant advantages over qPCR, as shown in several virus quantitation studies (CMV absolute quantitation, 24,25 hepatitis E virus (HEV) RNA quantification, 26 hepatitis B virus DNA quantification, 27 HIV-2 plasma RNA quantification, 28 cell-associated HIV-1 RNA quantitation 29 ). Due to the increased sensitivity over qPCR, dPCR may offer some novel applications, like detecting circulating human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in patients with HPVassociated carcinomas.…”