11 家智利实验室对大西洋鲑鱼(Salmo salar L.)中鲑鱼皮氏立克次体 qPCR 检测方法的实验室间比较。

IF 2.2 3区 农林科学 Q2 FISHERIES Journal of fish diseases Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1111/jfd.14044
Andrea Peña, Marco Rozas-Serri, Ian A Gardner, Benjamin Diethelm-Varela, Carla Anguita, Carlos Navarro Jerez, Fernando O Mardones
{"title":"11 家智利实验室对大西洋鲑鱼(Salmo salar L.)中鲑鱼皮氏立克次体 qPCR 检测方法的实验室间比较。","authors":"Andrea Peña, Marco Rozas-Serri, Ian A Gardner, Benjamin Diethelm-Varela, Carla Anguita, Carlos Navarro Jerez, Fernando O Mardones","doi":"10.1111/jfd.14044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Real-time PCR (qPCR) testing is an essential component of early detection surveillance systems for Piscirickettsia salmonis infection in Atlantic salmon farms in Chile. Currently, all 11 laboratories in the authorised diagnostic laboratory network use assays based on published protocols. Compared with other P. salmonis qPCR assays, these assays have the advantage of targeting two different genes, that is, the 16S ribosomal gene and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), potentially allowing for higher diagnostic accuracy. However, variation and lack of harmonisation of qPCR testing systems (e.g., primers/probe, RNA/DNA as target, extraction methods, etc.) may contribute to among-laboratory variation in qPCR results and an increased frequency of false-negative and false-positive results. The purpose of the ring trial reported herein was to compare qPCR results from 11 laboratories in Chile routinely testing Atlantic salmon for P. salmonis as part of a national control program. The panel of 14 samples included duplicates of three concentrations of P. salmonis in a homogenised head kidney, LF89 and EM90 bacteria and two negative controls (blank and a suspension of Flavobacterium psychrophilum). The sample order was randomised across labs, samples were tested blinded and analysed without knowledge of the source lab. Of the laboratories, 8 (72.7%) had at least one incorrect result out of 14 tested samples. Low-concentration samples (C<sub>t</sub> of about 30) were more often incorrectly classified by reverse transcription-qPCR (RT-qPCR) (3/6 labs) than by qPCR (0/5). Six (54.5%) labs had at least one false-positive result indicating that cross-contamination was likely during sample processing. Affected laboratories are advised to conduct internal investigations to confirm the causes of false-positive results and recommendations for design and implementation of future ring trials are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":15849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of fish diseases","volume":" ","pages":"e14044"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-Laboratory Comparison of qPCR Assays for Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) in 11 Chilean Laboratories.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Peña, Marco Rozas-Serri, Ian A Gardner, Benjamin Diethelm-Varela, Carla Anguita, Carlos Navarro Jerez, Fernando O Mardones\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jfd.14044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Real-time PCR (qPCR) testing is an essential component of early detection surveillance systems for Piscirickettsia salmonis infection in Atlantic salmon farms in Chile. Currently, all 11 laboratories in the authorised diagnostic laboratory network use assays based on published protocols. Compared with other P. salmonis qPCR assays, these assays have the advantage of targeting two different genes, that is, the 16S ribosomal gene and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), potentially allowing for higher diagnostic accuracy. However, variation and lack of harmonisation of qPCR testing systems (e.g., primers/probe, RNA/DNA as target, extraction methods, etc.) may contribute to among-laboratory variation in qPCR results and an increased frequency of false-negative and false-positive results. The purpose of the ring trial reported herein was to compare qPCR results from 11 laboratories in Chile routinely testing Atlantic salmon for P. salmonis as part of a national control program. The panel of 14 samples included duplicates of three concentrations of P. salmonis in a homogenised head kidney, LF89 and EM90 bacteria and two negative controls (blank and a suspension of Flavobacterium psychrophilum). The sample order was randomised across labs, samples were tested blinded and analysed without knowledge of the source lab. Of the laboratories, 8 (72.7%) had at least one incorrect result out of 14 tested samples. Low-concentration samples (C<sub>t</sub> of about 30) were more often incorrectly classified by reverse transcription-qPCR (RT-qPCR) (3/6 labs) than by qPCR (0/5). Six (54.5%) labs had at least one false-positive result indicating that cross-contamination was likely during sample processing. Affected laboratories are advised to conduct internal investigations to confirm the causes of false-positive results and recommendations for design and implementation of future ring trials are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of fish diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e14044\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of fish diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.14044\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of fish diseases","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.14044","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实时 PCR(qPCR)检测是智利大西洋鲑养殖场鲑鱼皮氏立克次体感染早期检测监控系统的重要组成部分。目前,授权诊断实验室网络中的所有 11 家实验室都在使用基于已发布协议的检测方法。与其他鲑鱼立克次体qPCR检测方法相比,这些检测方法的优势在于针对两个不同的基因,即16S核糖体基因和内部转录间隔(ITS),因此诊断准确率可能更高。然而,qPCR 检测系统(如引物/探针、作为目标的 RNA/DNA、提取方法等)的差异和不统一可能导致 qPCR 结果在实验室之间的差异,并增加假阴性和假阳性结果的频率。本文所报告的环比试验旨在比较智利 11 家实验室的 qPCR 结果,这些实验室对大西洋鲑鱼进行鲑鲭鱼雷氏菌的常规检测,是国家控制计划的一部分。14 份样本中包括三种浓度的重复样本:头肾、LF89 和 EM90 细菌以及两种阴性对照(空白对照和嗜盐黄杆菌悬浮液)。各实验室的样本顺序是随机的,对样本进行盲测,并在不知道样本来源实验室的情况下进行分析。在 14 个检测样本中,8 个实验室(72.7%)至少有一个结果不正确。反转录-qPCR(RT-qPCR)(3/6 个实验室)比 qPCR(0/5 个实验室)更经常对低浓度样本(Ct 约为 30)进行错误分类。有 6 个实验室(54.5%)至少出现了一次假阳性结果,这表明在样本处理过程中可能存在交叉污染。建议受影响的实验室进行内部调查,以确认出现假阳性结果的原因,并讨论了设计和实施未来环试的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inter-Laboratory Comparison of qPCR Assays for Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) in 11 Chilean Laboratories.

Real-time PCR (qPCR) testing is an essential component of early detection surveillance systems for Piscirickettsia salmonis infection in Atlantic salmon farms in Chile. Currently, all 11 laboratories in the authorised diagnostic laboratory network use assays based on published protocols. Compared with other P. salmonis qPCR assays, these assays have the advantage of targeting two different genes, that is, the 16S ribosomal gene and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), potentially allowing for higher diagnostic accuracy. However, variation and lack of harmonisation of qPCR testing systems (e.g., primers/probe, RNA/DNA as target, extraction methods, etc.) may contribute to among-laboratory variation in qPCR results and an increased frequency of false-negative and false-positive results. The purpose of the ring trial reported herein was to compare qPCR results from 11 laboratories in Chile routinely testing Atlantic salmon for P. salmonis as part of a national control program. The panel of 14 samples included duplicates of three concentrations of P. salmonis in a homogenised head kidney, LF89 and EM90 bacteria and two negative controls (blank and a suspension of Flavobacterium psychrophilum). The sample order was randomised across labs, samples were tested blinded and analysed without knowledge of the source lab. Of the laboratories, 8 (72.7%) had at least one incorrect result out of 14 tested samples. Low-concentration samples (Ct of about 30) were more often incorrectly classified by reverse transcription-qPCR (RT-qPCR) (3/6 labs) than by qPCR (0/5). Six (54.5%) labs had at least one false-positive result indicating that cross-contamination was likely during sample processing. Affected laboratories are advised to conduct internal investigations to confirm the causes of false-positive results and recommendations for design and implementation of future ring trials are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of fish diseases
Journal of fish diseases 农林科学-海洋与淡水生物学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
170
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Fish Diseases enjoys an international reputation as the medium for the exchange of information on original research into all aspects of disease in both wild and cultured fish and shellfish. Areas of interest regularly covered by the journal include: -host-pathogen relationships- studies of fish pathogens- pathophysiology- diagnostic methods- therapy- epidemiology- descriptions of new diseases
期刊最新文献
Does the Infestation by Trematode Parasites Influence Trade-Offs Between Somatic Condition and Male Reproductive Traits in a Viviparous Fish? Inter-Laboratory Comparison of qPCR Assays for Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) in 11 Chilean Laboratories. Just Hitching a Ride: Stable Isotopes Reveal Non-Feeding Behaviour of Anisakis simplex Within Its Host Fish. Ray-Resorption Syndrome in European Seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758). Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1