Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) have been recognized as etiologic factors in a variety of diseases. Due to the large number of HPV types, methods for HPV genotyping are difficult to standardize. Despite this fact, several methods exist, and some of them are available commercially. In this study, we evaluated the Roche Diagnostics linear array (LA) HPV genotyping assay, the Innogenetics INNO-LiPA (line probe assay [LiPA]), and two noncommercial reverse line blot (RLB) assays based on either primers GP5+ and GP6+ (GP) or newly designed broad-spectrum primers BSGP5+ and BSGP6+ (BS). The reliabilities of these assays were tested with a wide spectrum of HPV types less prevalent in cervical samples. This is the first study to compare the performance of the most widely used HPV genotyping methods with selected samples positive for low-prevalence HPV types. We focused on interassay agreement, both overall and type specific, in cases with single and/or multiple HPV infections. Interassay agreement was moderate in cases of single HPV infections and poor in cases of multiple HPV infections. The LA and the BS-based RLB assays found a higher rate of cases positive for multiple HPV types than LiPA and the GP-based RLB assay. The weakest capability in detecting multiple HPV infections was observed for LiPA. The use of only one assay in epidemiological and clinical studies might lead to biased conclusions. Therefore, a universally evaluated and agreed upon HPV typing assay or a combination of current assays is needed for possible clinical applications, and knowledge of their limitations is advised.

Department of Experimental Virology Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion Prague Czech Republic

Division of Molecular Medicine Rudjer Boskovic Institute Zagreb Croatia

Literatura

000      

00000naa a2200000 a 4500

001      

bmc13033254

003      

CZ-PrNML

005      

20131022123916.0

007      

ta

008      

131015s2008 xxu f 000 0|eng||

009      

AR

024    7_

$a 10.1128/JCM.02328-07 $2 doi

035    __

$a (PubMed)18322064

040    __

$a ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2 $b cze

041    0_

$a eng

044    __

$a xxu

100    1_

$a Sabol, Ivan $u Division of Molecular Medicine, Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

245    10

$a Evaluation of different techniques for identification of human papillomavirus types of low prevalence / $c I Sabol, M Salakova, J Smahelova, M Pawlita, M Schmitt, NM Gasperov, M Grce, R Tachezy

504    __

$a Literatura

520    9_

$a Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) have been recognized as etiologic factors in a variety of diseases. Due to the large number of HPV types, methods for HPV genotyping are difficult to standardize. Despite this fact, several methods exist, and some of them are available commercially. In this study, we evaluated the Roche Diagnostics linear array (LA) HPV genotyping assay, the Innogenetics INNO-LiPA (line probe assay [LiPA]), and two noncommercial reverse line blot (RLB) assays based on either primers GP5+ and GP6+ (GP) or newly designed broad-spectrum primers BSGP5+ and BSGP6+ (BS). The reliabilities of these assays were tested with a wide spectrum of HPV types less prevalent in cervical samples. This is the first study to compare the performance of the most widely used HPV genotyping methods with selected samples positive for low-prevalence HPV types. We focused on interassay agreement, both overall and type specific, in cases with single and/or multiple HPV infections. Interassay agreement was moderate in cases of single HPV infections and poor in cases of multiple HPV infections. The LA and the BS-based RLB assays found a higher rate of cases positive for multiple HPV types than LiPA and the GP-based RLB assay. The weakest capability in detecting multiple HPV infections was observed for LiPA. The use of only one assay in epidemiological and clinical studies might lead to biased conclusions. Therefore, a universally evaluated and agreed upon HPV typing assay or a combination of current assays is needed for possible clinical applications, and knowledge of their limitations is advised.

590    __

$a bohemika - dle Pubmed

650    02

$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260

650    02

$a lidé $7 D006801

650    12

$a diagnostické techniky molekulární $x metody $7 D025202

650    02

$a Papillomaviridae $x genetika $x izolace a purifikace $x klasifikace $7 D027383

650    12

$a infekce papilomavirem $x diagnóza $x virologie $7 D030361

650    02

$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680

650    12

$a virologie $x metody $7 D014773

655    _2

$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160

655    _2

$a hodnotící studie $7 D023362

655    _2

$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485

700    1_

$a Saláková, Martina $7 xx0086174 $u Department of Experimental Virology, Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czech Republic

700    1_

$a Šmahelová, Jana $7 xx0110565 $u Department of Experimental Virology, Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czech Republic

700    1_

$a Pawlita, Michal

700    1_

$a Schmitt, Markus

700    1_

$a Gašperov, Nina Milutin

700    1_

$a Grce, Magdalena

700    1_

$a Tachezy, Ruth

773    0_

$t Journal of Clinical Microbiology $g Roč. 46, č. 5 (2008), s. 1606-1613 $p J Clin Microbiol $x 0095-1137 $w MED00002592

773    0_

$p J Clin Microbiol $g 46(5):1606-13, 2008 May

910    __

$a ABA008 $b B 1646 $y 3 $z 0

990    __

$a 20131015101247 $b ABA008

991    __

$a 20131022124507 $b ABA008

999    __

$a ok $b bmc $g 997423 $s 831707

BAS    __

$a 3

BMC    __

$a 2008 $b 46 $c 5 $d 1606-1613 $i 0095-1137 $m Journal of clinical microbiology $x MED00002592 $n J Clin Microbiol

GRA    __

$a NR8852 $p MZ0

LZP    __

$a 2013-10/dpbo