Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Comparative Study | Journal Article | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Comparison of two automated DNA amplification systems with a manual one-tube nested PCR assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.

K Y Yuen, W C Yam, L P Wong, W H Seto
K Y Yuen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W C Yam
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L P Wong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W H Seto
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Eighty-four specimens of respiratory secretions culture positive for mycobacteria (70 positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and 14 positive for nontuberculous mycobacteria) and 120 culture-negative specimens were evaluated by three DNA amplification techniques: a manual in-house single-tube nested PCR (nPCR) and two commercial automated assays (the Cobas Amplicor System [aPCR-h] from Roche Diagnostic Systems and the Abbott LCx Probe System [aLCx-p] from Abbott Laboratories). The overall diagnostic sensitivities of the nPCR, aPCR-h, and aLCx-p were 77.1, 84.3, and 77.1%, respectively, and the sensitivities were 57.9, 57.9, and 36.8%, respectively, for smear-negative specimens. Specimens culture positive for nontuberculous mycobacteria were negative by all three assays. Eight culture-negative specimens which were positive by one or more assays had previously been documented by culture to be positive for M. tuberculosis and were taken from patients who were treated with antituberculosis agents. Retesting of specimens negative by one assay by the other two assays revealed that each test had its unique group of negative specimens. When considering the DNA extraction and amplification steps of these assays separately, it was found that extracts from aPCR-h and aLCx-p were compatible with nPCR amplication, while the two automated assays could only amplify extracts processed with their own reagents. Limiting dilution analysis revealed that the order of analytical sensitivity was nPCR, followed by aLCx-p and then aPCR-h. Comparison of the work flow of each assay revealed that although the aPCR-h demands the least specimen handling, the turnaround time of aLCx-p is the most favorable.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of two automated DNA amplification systems with a manual one-tube nested PCR assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.
K Y Yuen, W C Yam, L P Wong, W H Seto
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 1997, 35 (6) 1385-1389; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of two automated DNA amplification systems with a manual one-tube nested PCR assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
Share
Comparison of two automated DNA amplification systems with a manual one-tube nested PCR assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.
K Y Yuen, W C Yam, L P Wong, W H Seto
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 1997, 35 (6) 1385-1389; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X