A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms

Monique A. Johnson, Marvin J. Yoshitomi, Carolyn (Sue) Richards

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2007

Fingerprint

Cystic Fibrosis
Aptitude
Ligation
Alleles
Sensitivity and Specificity
Mutation
Microfluidics
Workflow
Mutation Rate
Oligonucleotides
Reflex
Genotype
Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Molecular Biology

Cite this

A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms. / Johnson, Monique A.; Yoshitomi, Marvin J.; Richards, Carolyn (Sue).

In: Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, Vol. 9, No. 3, 07.2007, p. 401-407.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, Monique A. ; Yoshitomi, Marvin J. ; Richards, Carolyn (Sue). / A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms. In: Journal of Molecular Diagnostics. 2007 ; Vol. 9, No. 3. pp. 401-407.
@article{4d44dd62b4cc45c6ac551640cda61fdb,
title = "A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Johnson, {Monique A.} and Yoshitomi, {Marvin J.} and Richards, {Carolyn (Sue)}",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060163",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "401--407",
journal = "Journal of Molecular Diagnostics",
issn = "1525-1578",
publisher = "Association of Molecular Pathology",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of five technologically diverse CFTR testing platforms

AU - Johnson, Monique A.

AU - Yoshitomi, Marvin J.

AU - Richards, Carolyn (Sue)

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

VL - 9

SP - 401

EP - 407

JO - Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

JF - Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

SN - 1525-1578

IS - 3

ER -