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
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • 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
  • My Cart

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • 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
Chlamydiology and Rickettsiology

Pilot Study of COBAS PCR and Ligase Chain Reaction for Detection of Rectal Infections Due to Chlamydia trachomatis

Matthew R. Golden, Sabina G. Astete, Rosa Galvan, Aldo Lucchetti, Jorge Sanchez, Connie L. Celum, William L. H. Whittington, Walter E. Stamm, King K. Holmes, Patricia A. Totten
Matthew R. Golden
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
2Public Health—Seattle and King County STD Program, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: golden@u.washington.edu
Sabina G. Astete
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rosa Galvan
3Asociación Civil Impacta Salud y Educación, Lima, Peru
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aldo Lucchetti
3Asociación Civil Impacta Salud y Educación, Lima, Peru
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jorge Sanchez
3Asociación Civil Impacta Salud y Educación, Lima, Peru
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Connie L. Celum
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William L. H. Whittington
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walter E. Stamm
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
King K. Holmes
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patricia A. Totten
1Division of Infectious Diseases and the Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.5.2174-2175.2003
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We tested rectal specimens from men who have sex with men for Chlamydia trachomatis by using COBAS PCR (Roche Diagnostics) and ligase chain reaction LCR (Abbott laboratories) and compared three PCR specimen-processing procedures. Chlamydiae were detected by one or more procedures in 22 of 186 specimens. All three PCR tests were positive for 17 specimens, all of which also tested positive by LCR.

Chlamydia trachomatis is a common cause of sexually acquired anorectal infections, particularly in men who have sex with men (MSM) (4, 6). Several health departments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recently issued guidelines advocating routine screening of MSM for rectal chlamydial infections by using culture (2, 3, 8). However, most laboratories do not perform chlamydial culture (1), and culture of rectal specimens requires additional procedures, e.g., sonication and dilution, to achieve optimal sensitivity. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are widely used to test for C. trachomatis, but little available data address the performance of these tests on rectal specimens (7), and optimal methods of specimen processing have not been established. In this study, we assessed the agreement between PCR and ligase chain reaction (LCR) for detecting rectal infections with C. trachomatis and compared three different specimen-processing procedures for PCR testing.

As part of a protocol to screen men for participation in a study of MSM in Lima, Peru, during 1998, anorectal specimens were collected (J. L. Sanchez, W. L. H. Whittington, R. A. Zuckerman, R. L. Ashley, J. R. Lama, R. Galvan, J. Sanchez, K. Russell, and C. L. Celum, Conf. HIV Pathog. Treatment, abstr. 264, 2001). A Dacron swab was inserted into the anorectal canal, rotated, inoculated into 2SP (0.2 M sucrose, 0.02 M potassium phosphate buffer, and 0.001% phenol red [pH 7.5]) (5), and then stored initially at −20°C and then at −80°C until testing. Human subjects review committees at the University of Washington and Cayetano Heredia University approved the study protocol; participants provided written informed consent.

For PCR analyses, aliquots of each specimen were processed by three methods. For procedure 1, a 50-μl aliquot of each specimen was first diluted in lysis buffer and then was diluted in diluent as described in the Roche CT/NG sample treatment kit for specimens collected on swabs (Swab procedure; Roche Diagnostics Systems, Branchburg, N.J.). For procedure 2, a 125-μl aliquot of each specimen was centrifuged for 5 min at 12,500 × g and was treated as described in the Roche CT/NG sample treatment kit for urine (Urine procedure; Roche). For procedure 3, a 150-μl aliquot of specimen was treated with the MasterPure DNA Purification kit (Epicenter, Madison, Wis.) according to the manufacturer's directions, with the exception that the DNA pellet precipitated in the last step was suspended in 30 μl of Tris-EDTA buffer (pH 8). Five microliters of purified DNA was then mixed with 7.5 μl of 2SP and equivalent amounts of Roche reagents. As a result of these purification procedures, the amounts of the original clinical specimen in the 100-μl PCRs were 12.5, 50, and 25 μl for procedures 1, 2, and 3, respectively. All specimens were tested for C. trachomatis according to the manufacturer's instructions for the Cobas PCR (Roche).

For LCR testing, a 120-μl aliquot was centrifuged for 15 min at 13,000 × g, and the resulting pellet was suspended in 120 μl of urine resuspension buffer (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill.) to remove the inhibitory effects of phosphate in the 2SP collection medium. LCR testing was then performed on 100 μl of this treated specimen according to the manufacturer's instructions (Abbott Laboratories). Since the LCR test does not contain internal controls to check for LCR inhibition, all specimens were diluted to a ratio of 1:6 to confirm initial results. This dilution was selected because previous experiments with dilutions of urines spiked with different concentrations of C. trachomatis resulted in no decreased detection of C. trachomatis by LCR at 1:6 dilution.

When sufficient clinical specimen remained, specimens producing discordant PCR and LCR results were purified by using procedure 3. Repeat LCR testing was done by using 5 μl of Epicenter purified DNA added to 100 μl of urine resuspension buffer (Abbott). Experiments with specimens producing concordant PCR and LCR results were repeated by using purified aliquots for all 15 specimens initially positive by LCR and all PCR specimen-processing procedures and a sample of 17 specimens that initially tested negative with both tests.

Among the 186 specimens, four were inhibited in PCRs, two each with procedures 1 and 2 (Table 1). Fifteen specimens (8.0%) tested positive and 160 (86%) tested negative by PCR with each of the three specimen-processing procedures and by initial LCR testing. Two additional specimens positive by PCR by all three specimen-processing procedures were LCR negative in the unpurified specimen and were LCR (and PCR) positive following DNA purification. Five specimens were PCR positive by only one of the processing procedures and were negative by LCR with unpurified specimen; two of these specimens became LCR positive following DNA purification. After DNA purification, all 15 specimens that initially tested LCR positive and PCR positive with all of the three specimen-processing procedures again tested PCR positive; 14 of these purified specimens retested LCR positive. All 17 initially negative specimens remained LCR and PCR negative after DNA purification (data not shown).

In summary, we found that agreement between PCR and LCR was high and that the three specimen treatment protocols gave similar PCR results. Only the third specimen-processing method, PCR after DNA purification, was completely free of inhibition. This method produced three positive results that were negative by PCR prior to DNA purification, two of which were confirmed by LCR. Nonetheless, among the 186 specimens tested, only two were inhibited by using the swab specimen-processing method, a surprising result given the minimal specimen processing performed. Initial PCR and LCR results agreed in 178 of 184 (98%) of these specimens, and 17 of the 18 PCR-positive specimens processed by procedure 1 were also LCR positive, either before or after DNA purification. Given the low frequency of inhibition, the high level of agreement between PCR and LCR on specimens processed by using the swab-processing procedure (procedure 1), and the relative ease and low cost of this procedure, we recommend the Roche swab-processing procedure when testing rectal specimens by PCR.

While our results suggest that PCR and LCR can be used to detect rectal chlamydial infections, the study was not designed to estimate the sensitivity or specificity of NAATs for detecting rectal chlamydial infections. Specimen storage conditions available in Lima (−20°C) did not permit us to perform reliable cultures for C. trachomatis, which might have served as a reference standard. Furthermore, specimens were collected in PCR media and PCR was performed after a single freeze/thaw cycle, while LCR was performed after a second such cycle. Thus, our procedures may have selectively decreased the sensitivity of LCR.

Despite these limitations, in this pilot study we have shown that PCR and LCR can be used to detect rectal infections with C. trachomatis and that a commercially available specimen treatment regimen (Swab procedure; Roche), the least labor-intensive approach, appears promising for processing rectal specimens for PCR. Further research is needed to compare different NAATs and culture and to define the sensitivity and specificity of these different tests in detecting rectal chlamydial infections.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Comparison of PCR by specimen-processing procedure and LCR for detection of C. trachomatis in rectal specimens

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

M.R.G. is supported by NIH K23 AI01846-02. This study was supported by a grant from Roche Diagnostics and the University of Washington NIH STD Cooperative Research Center (AI31448).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 2 December 2002.
    • Returned for modification 12 February 2003.
    • Accepted 18 February 2003.
  • Copyright © 2003 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Battle, T. J., M. R. Golden, K. L. Suchland, J. M. Counts, J. P. Hughes, W. E. Stamm, and K. K. Holmes. 2001. Evaluation of laboratory testing methods for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the era of nucleic acid amplification. J. Clin. Microbiol.39:2924-2927.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    California STD Controllers Association and California Coalition of Local AIDS Directors. 2001. Guidance for STD clinical preventive services for persons infected with HIV. Sex. Transm. Dis.28:460-463.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. Sexually transmitted treatment guidelines 2002. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.51(RR-6):7.
  4. 4.↵
    Geisler, W. M., W. L. Whittington, R. J. Suchland, and W. E. Stamm. 2002. Epidemiology of anorectal chlamydial and gonococcal infections among men having sex with men in Seattle: utilizing serovar and auxotype strain typing. Sex. Transm. Dis.29:189-195.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Gordon, F. B., I. A. Harper, J. D. Quan, J. D. Treharne, R. S. Dwyer, and J. A. Garland. 1969. Detection of Chlamydia (Bedsonia) in certain infections in man. 1. Laboratory procedures: comparison of yolk sac and cell culture for detection and isolation. J. Infect. Dis.120:451-462.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    McMillan, A., R. G. Sommerville, and P. M. McKie. 1981. Chlamydial infection in homosexual men. Frequency of isolation of Chlamydia trachomatis from the urethra, ano-rectum, and pharynx. Br. J. Vener. Dis.57:47-49.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Ostergaard, L., T. Agner, E. Krarup, U. B. Johansen, K. Weismann, and E. Gutschik. 1997. PCR for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in endocervical, urethral, rectal, and pharyngeal swab samples obtained from patients attending an STD clinic. Genitourin. Med.73:493-497.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Public Health—Seattle and King County. 2001. Sexually transmitted disease and HIV screening guidelines for men who have sex with men. Sex. Transm. Dis.28:457-459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Pilot Study of COBAS PCR and Ligase Chain Reaction for Detection of Rectal Infections Due to Chlamydia trachomatis
Matthew R. Golden, Sabina G. Astete, Rosa Galvan, Aldo Lucchetti, Jorge Sanchez, Connie L. Celum, William L. H. Whittington, Walter E. Stamm, King K. Holmes, Patricia A. Totten
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2003, 41 (5) 2174-2175; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.5.2174-2175.2003

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.
Pilot Study of COBAS PCR and Ligase Chain Reaction for Detection of Rectal Infections Due to Chlamydia trachomatis
(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.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Pilot Study of COBAS PCR and Ligase Chain Reaction for Detection of Rectal Infections Due to Chlamydia trachomatis
Matthew R. Golden, Sabina G. Astete, Rosa Galvan, Aldo Lucchetti, Jorge Sanchez, Connie L. Celum, William L. H. Whittington, Walter E. Stamm, King K. Holmes, Patricia A. Totten
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2003, 41 (5) 2174-2175; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.5.2174-2175.2003
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Chlamydia Infections
Chlamydia trachomatis
Ligase Chain Reaction
polymerase chain reaction
Rectal Diseases

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

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

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