LDT optimization on Panther Fusion®
The Open Access™ functionality allows users to optimize primer, probe, and salt concentrations in the primer probe reconstitution (PPR) mix. A representative primer/probe optimization study is described here for detection of norovirus G2: Forward and reverse primers were tested in the following concentrations: 0.2 μM, 0.4 μM, and 0.6 μM. Sensitivity improved (lower CT and higher RFU values) with increasing primer concentrations. Therefore, primers were used at 0.6 μM for further assay development. We also tested different probe concentrations for norovirus G2 detection. With a fixed primer concentration of 0.6 μM, the probe was tested at 0.2 μM, 0.4 μM, and 0.6 μM. The maximal RFU was approximately twice as high with 0.4 and 0.6 μM probe compared to 0.2 μM. However, no change in CT value was observed. Since the maximal fluorescence with 0.2 μM probe was sufficiently high (approx. 20,000 RFU; FAM channel), this probe concentration was chosen for further assay development.
A linear drift of the baseline was observed, which was more pronounced with higher probe concentrations. The use of probe Ring2 at 0.2 μM with probes Ring1f and Ring1g each at 0.1 μM provided a good compromise between minimal baseline drift and high sensitivity. It was possible to correct for the residual baseline drift by enabling baseline correction in the final LDT protocol (Fig. S1). No further undesired interactions between the primers and probes for norovirus G1, norovirus G2, rotavirus, and IC were observed.
With the final settings for primer and probe concentrations, a panel of nine samples was used for all optimization experiments. This panel included three different stool suspensions from clinical samples positive for norovirus G1, norovirus G2, and rotavirus, respectively (Table 4).
Table 4 Optimization of the PPR mix composition MgCl2 concentrations of 2 mM, 3 mM, and 4 mM were tested (Table 4). The 2 mM MgCl2 concentration was the worst for norovirus G1 and G2 detection, yielding higher CT values. There was no substantial difference between 3 mM and 4 mM MgCl2. KCl concentrations of 50 mM, 70 mM, and 90 mM were tested (Table 4). KCl concentrations had little, if any, effect on CT values. Tris concentrations of 5 mM, 10 mM, and 20 mM were tested (Table 4). Tris concentrations had little, if any, effect on CT values. Thus, 4 mM MgCl2, 70 mM KCl, and 10 mM Tris concentrations were chosen for the final LDT protocol.
With this final composition, three temperatures for PCR annealing/elongation were tested: 56 °C, 60 °C, and 64 °C (Fig. 1). Norovirus G1 and rotavirus detection were best at 60 °C and 64 °C, while norovirus G2 detection was best at 56 °C and 60 °C. Thus, an annealing/elongation temperature of 60 °C was well suited for the detection of all three targets and was chosen for the final LDT protocol.
LDT reproducibility
To assess the reproducibility of the PCR reaction alone and in combination with the extraction process, the same sample was extracted three times and three PCR reactions were performed per extraction. We observed reproducible results for PCR reaction alone and in combination with the extraction process (Table 5), with a mean CT difference < 1 cycle across replicates. The variation in CT values was similar between the three PCR replicates of one extraction and between the different extractions, suggesting a reproducible extraction process.
Table 5 Reproducibility of the extraction and PCR process Linearity and sensitivity
To assess the linearity of the assay, serial dilutions (1:10) of six clinical samples were tested (actual target concentration unknown). The samples were prepared according to the stool suspension method and tested in parallel (the same sample tube was used) with the LDT and Allplex™ reference assay to compare assay sensitivity.
On average, the serial dilution resulted in an increase in CT value by 3.3 ± 0.2 cycles, demonstrating linearity of the LDT and PCR efficiency close to the optimum (Fig. 2). Target concentrations resulting in CT values up to 38 were reliably detected with the LDT in all replicates. CT values > 38 were observed occasionally, but were out of the linear range. The sensitivity of rotavirus detection was comparable between the LDT and the Allplex™ assay. The sensitivity of norovirus detection was higher with the LDT, since up to two additional dilution steps were detected as positive with the LDT.
Onboard stability of the PPR mix
To test the onboard stability of the PPR mix, the same three clinical samples were tested every 24 h for a period of 11 days (no testing on day 6). The CT values remained constant for the entire test period (mean ± SD = 33.8 ± 0.4 for norovirus G1; 31.8 ± 0.5 for norovirus G2; 28.2 ± 0.6 for rotavirus) (Fig. 3). CT values did not increase with time. These results demonstrated the stability of the PPR mix for at least 11 days.
Evaluation of the LDT with EQA samples
To determine the specificity and sensitivity of the LDT, EQA samples for norovirus (n = 33; 25 positives and 8 negatives) and rotavirus (n = 12; 10 positives and 2 negatives) were tested.
All 10 positive rotavirus EQA samples and all 25 positive norovirus EQA samples tested positive for the respective virus with the LDT. All negative rotavirus and norovirus EQA samples tested negative with the LDT.
Evaluation of the LDT with clinical samples
To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of the LDT, 160 clinical stool samples previously tested with the Allplex™ assay were retested with the LDT. These 160 samples consisted of 25 samples positive for rotavirus, 25 samples positive for norovirus G1, 50 samples positive for norovirus G2, and 60 samples negative for both viruses. Of these 60 negative samples, 10 were positive for adenovirus species F, astrovirus, or sapovirus, respectively.
There was 100% concordance between LDT and Allplex™ results. All clinical samples that previously tested positive for rotavirus or norovirus in the Allplex™ assay also tested positive for the respective virus in the LDT. All samples that were previously tested negative for rotavirus or norovirus were also negative in the LDT. In particular, all samples positive for adenovirus species F, astrovirus, or sapovirus were negative for noro- and rotavirus in the LDT, demonstrating the high specificity of the LDT.
Comparison of stool sample preparation methods
Two stool sample preparation methods were compared: the suspension method and the direct swab method (see “Materials and Methods”). Fifty-nine stool samples with known status by the Allplex™ assay were tested: 30 samples positive for norovirus G1, norovirus G2, or rotavirus (including two norovirus/rotavirus double infections), and 29 samples negative for all three pathogens. These samples were not retested with the Allplex™ assay.
There was a good concordance of results from the two stool sample preparation methods (Table 6). There was no issue (i.e., PCR inhibition) caused by solid stool particles present on the bottom of the collection tubes when using the direct swab method. The direct swab method yielded a higher sensitivity. Three samples that previously tested positive for rotavirus (1 sample) or norovirus (2 samples) were positive only with the direct swab method (i.e., were missed by the suspension method) in the retest. CT values of these three samples were rather high in the Allplex™ assay and with direct swab testing, suggesting a low viral load (data not shown). On average, CT values were lower by 2–4 cycles with the direct swab method (data not shown), demonstrating the advantage of this sample preparation method with respect to sensitivity. The unexpected norovirus detection in one of the astrovirus positive samples (CT = 40.1) is most likely explained by a low viral load of the sample that was not detected with the Allplex™ assay.
Table 6 Comparison of the suspension and direct swab stool sample preparation methods