JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Doorn, L.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Doorn, L.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Wheeler, C. M.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, March 2002, p. 979-983, Vol. 40, No. 3
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.3.979-983.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Genotyping of Human Papillomavirus in Liquid Cytology Cervical Specimens by the PGMY Line Blot Assay and the SPF10 Line Probe Assay

Leen-Jan van Doorn,1 Wim Quint,1 Bernhard Kleter,1 Anco Molijn,1 Brigitte Colau,2 Marie-Thérèse Martin,2 Kravang-In,2 Norah Torrez-Martinez,3 Cheri L. Peyton,3 and Cosette M. Wheeler3*

Delft Diagnostic Laboratory, Delft, The Netherlands,1 Glaxo Smith Kline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium,2 Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico3

Received 2 July 2001/ Returned for modification 11 September 2001/ Accepted 21 December 2001

A comparison of two PCR-based human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection and genotyping systems (PGMY LBA and SPF10 LiPA) was conducted in two laboratories. Both systems are based on broad-spectrum PCR for the detection of HPV DNA, followed by reverse hybridization with type-specific probes. A total of 400 selected cervical scrape specimens in PreservCyt solution (55% normal cytology, 18% atypical squamous cells of unknown significance, 14.8% low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [SIL], and 12.5% high-grade SIL) were tested for the presence of HPV DNA. In this selected group of specimens, the overall agreement between the two methods for the detection of any HPV DNA was high ({kappa} = 0.859). When the 20 common HPV genotypes identified by both methods were considered (HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68), compatible genotype-specific results were observed in 96.5% of the samples, even when multiple HPV genotypes were present. However, for some specific HPV genotypes, there were significant differences in HPV detection by the two methods. PGMY LBA detected more HPV type 42 (P = 0.002), HPV type 56 (P = 0.039), and HPV type 59 (P < 0.001), whereas SPF10 LiPA detected more HPV type 31 (P < 0.001) and HPV type 52 (P = 0.031). For the remaining genotypes, including HPV types 16 and 18, the results obtained by the two methods were not significantly different. In general, both genotyping methods are highly suitable for clinical and epidemiological studies.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of New Mexico, School of Medicine, Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, 915 Camino de Salud N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87131-5276. Phone: (505) 272-9151. Fax: (505) 277-5273. E-mail: cwheeler{at}salud.unm.edu.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, March 2002, p. 979-983, Vol. 40, No. 3
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.3.979-983.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.