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
Virology

Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes

Hee Jae Huh, Ji-Youn Kim, Hyeon Jeong Kwon, Sun Ae Yun, Myoung-Keun Lee, Nam Yong Lee, Jong-Won Kim, Chang-Seok Ki
Alexander J. McAdam, Editor
Hee Jae Huh
aDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ji-Youn Kim
bCenter for Clinical Medicine, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hyeon Jeong Kwon
bCenter for Clinical Medicine, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sun Ae Yun
bCenter for Clinical Medicine, Samsung Biomedical Research Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Myoung-Keun Lee
aDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nam Yong Lee
aDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jong-Won Kim
aDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chang-Seok Ki
aDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander J. McAdam
Boston Children's Hospital
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02045-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 (Allplex) comprise a one-step real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay for the detection of respiratory viruses (RVs) and influenza A subtypes based on multiple detection temperature (MuDT) technology. The performance of the Allplex assay was compared with those of the AdvanSure RV real-time PCR kit (AdvanSure) and the PowerChek pandemic H1N1/H3N2/H5N1 real-time PCR kit (PowerChek) using 417 clinical respiratory specimens. In comparison with the AdvanSure assay for RV detection by each virus, the ranges of positive percent agreement, negative percent agreement, and kappa values with the Allplex assay were 82.8 to 100%, 95.5 to 100%, and 0.85 to 1.00, respectively. For influenza A virus (INF A) subtyping, the kappa values between the Allplex and PowerChek assays were 0.67 and 1.00 for the INF A H1N1-pdm09 and H3 subtypes, respectively. Uniplex PCR and sequencing for samples with discrepant results demonstrated that the majority of results were concordant with those from the Allplex assay. When testing 24 samples, the turnaround and hands-on time required to perform the Allplex assay were 4 h 15 min and 15 min, respectively. In conclusion, the Allplex assay produced results comparable to those from the AdvanSure and PowerChek assays.

INTRODUCTION

Acute respiratory viral infections are common causes of substantial morbidity and mortality in pediatric and adult patients. An early detection of respiratory virus (RV) infections enables clinicians to initiate immediate therapeutic interventions that can reduce complications, antibiotic use, and unnecessary laboratory testing (1–4). Multiplex molecular assays can simultaneously detect multiple RVs, and clinical laboratories have adopted the use of various commercial assays of this type (1, 5–7).

Recently, the Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 (Allplex; Seegene, Republic of Korea), a one-step, real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) assay based on multiple detection temperature (MuDT) technology, was developed and received Conformité Européene-in vitro diagnostic (CE-IVD) approval. The MuDT is a novel analytical technique that detects multiple targets in a single fluorescence channel without melting curve analysis (8). The assay is composed of three reaction tubes and targets 16 viruses and 3 influenza (INF) A virus subtypes: panel 1 includes the INF A virus (subtypes H1, H1N1-pdm09, and H3), INF B virus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) types A and B; panel 2 includes adenovirus (ADV), metapneumovirus (MPV), human enterovirus (HEV), and parainfluenza virus (PIV) types 1, 2, 3, and 4; and panel 3 includes human bocavirus (BoV), coronaviruses (CoVs) OC43, 229E, and NL63, and human rhinovirus (HRV). The Allplex assay combined with the automated workstation Microlab Nimbus IVD (Hamilton, Reno, NV, USA) comprises a fully automated system from specimen handling to result, including nucleic acid extraction, real-time PCR setup, and data analysis with the Seegene viewer (Seegene).

The aims of this study were to evaluate the analytical performance of the Allplex assay and to compare the performance with those of the AdvanSure RV real-time PCR kit (AdvanSure; LG Life Sciences, Republic of Korea) and the PowerChek pandemic H1N1/H3N2/H5N1 real-time PCR kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Republic of Korea) for RV detection and INF A virus subtyping, respectively.

RESULTS

Distribution of respiratory viruses.Two of the 417 specimens included in this study generated invalid results in the Allplex assay and were omitted from analysis due to insufficient amounts of residual specimens for repeat testing. The results of the remaining 415 specimens were analyzed in this study. After discrepancy resolution, at least one RV was detected in 302 specimens (247 with a single virus, 48 with two viruses, 5 with three viruses, and 2 with four viruses) by either of the two assay types (the Allplex assay or the AdvanSure assay).

Comparison of the Allplex and AdvanSure assays.A total of 296 (71.3%) and 300 (72.3%) samples were Allplex- and AdvanSure-positive, respectively. As shown in Table 1, the ranges for positive and negative agreement between the Allplex and AdvanSure assays were 82.8 to 100% and 95.5 to 100%, respectively. The kappa values for the two methods ranged from 0.85 to 1.00.

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

Comparisons of the Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 and AdvanSure RV real-time RT-PCR assays for detecting respiratory viruses

Discordant results were observed in 32 specimens, and two samples had two discrepant viruses; thus, 34 discrepancies were detected. Among the 32 specimens, 13 (40.6%) were polyviral specimens. A total of 22 results were Allplex positive and AdvanSure negative. Among the 22 results, 90.9% (20/22) were confirmed positive by uniplex PCR and sequencing (Table 2). Of the 12 Allplex-negative and AdvanSure-positive results, 50.0% (6/12) were confirmed positive by uniplex PCR and sequencing. Overall, the uniplex PCR and sequencing for the samples with discordant results demonstrated that a majority (76.5% [26/34]) of the results were concordant with those from the Allplex assay.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Resolution of discordant results between the Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 and the AdvanSure RV real-time RT-PCR assays

The AdvanSure assay gave false-positive HRV results for two samples, of which one sample showed cross-reactivity between HRV and HEV. The Allplex assay correctly detected HEV in the sample.

Comparison of the Allplex assay with the PowerChek assay for INF A virus subtyping.A total of 48 specimens with INF A virus were included in the analysis. As shown in Table 3, the kappa values for the two methods were 0.67 and 1.00 for INF A H1N1-pdm09 and the H3 subtype, respectively. Discordant results were observed in four specimens, of which three were subtyped H1N1-pdm09 by only the Allplex assay. The remaining specimen was subtyped H1N1-pdm09 by only the PowerChek assay. Uniplex PCR and sequencing confirmed that all discordant specimens were INF A H1N1-pdm09.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Comparison of the Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3 and the PowerChek pandemic H1N1/H3N2/H5N1 real-time PCR assays for influenza A virus subtyping

Analytical performance and workload analysis for the Allplex assay.The detection limits for the Allplex assay for RVs were 50 copies/reaction, except for PIV type 1 (10 copies/reaction), PIV type 4, and MPV (103 copies/reaction). In the analytical specificity test, all 21 different microorganisms gave negative results, and nonspecific positive reactions were not observed (Table 4). For the 24 samples, the turnaround time (TAT) and hands-on time (HOT) required for performing the Allplex assay were 4 h 15 min and 15 min, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Analytic specificity for the Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3

DISCUSSION

In the last decade, advances in molecular diagnostic testing have led to changes in clinical microbiology laboratories (9–11). There is a wide array of molecular technologies emerging for the detection of RVs from clinical specimens. Some of these technologies have potential for high-throughput batch testing and others will allow for rapid near-patient testing (6, 7, 12, 13). Random-access testing, such as with the BioFire Film Array respiratory panel (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France), may be suitable for laboratories handling small numbers of specimens due to a limited capacity, but also has a rapid TAT and a simple work process (7, 13–15). On the other hand, high-throughput batch testing may be useful for laboratories performing large numbers of assays. The Allplex assay is best suited for batch testing, which is capable of handling a maximum of 96 rRT-PCRs per batch. The assay has definitive strengths in terms of workload (HOT and ease of handling) compared with other recently available batch-testing techniques (7, 16, 17). The application of the Microlab Nimbus IVD, an automated liquid handler, reduces the HOT to 15 min to test 24 samples. Furthermore, the Allplex assay minimizes the possibility of contamination, since it is a one-step rRT-PCR process that does not require the manipulation of postamplification material (18).

In this study, the Allplex assay demonstrated results equivalent to those of the AdvanSure and PowerChek assays. The majority of the discrepant results were concordant with the results from the Allplex assay after discrepancy resolution. All discordant results that were confirmed positive by uniplex PCR and sequencing were associated with high cycle threshold (CT) values, suggesting low viral genome loads (data not shown).

One sample showed cross-reactivity between HRV and HEV in the AdvanSure assay, while the Allplex assay correctly detected HEV in the sample. Results from previous studies demonstrated that the similarities between the HRV and HEV sequences enabled cross-amplification in molecular assays (19, 20). Thus, a positive result for any HRV or HEV would indicate the detection of HRV/HEV in many commercially available RV panels (7, 17, 19). However, differentiating between HRV and HEV infections is important in outbreak areas and for epidemiology (19, 21). One strength of the Allplex assay is that it enables specific identification of HRVs and HEVs. Although we did not evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for HEV detection in this study, there were six specimens that were HEV positive. All of these specimens were confirmed by uniplex PCR and sequencing. Except for the result from one sample with a low viral load, all results were confirmed positive (data not shown).

The limitations of this study include the low numbers of specific virus-positive specimens and INF A virus subtypes. This prevented a robust evaluation of diagnostic performance. Further studies are needed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy for detecting HEV and PIV type 4. Another limitation is that we could not assess the diagnostic accuracy, including sensitivity and specificity, because a consistent reference standard was not applied.

In conclusion, the Allplex assay produced results comparable to those of the AdvanSure and PowerChek assays. The Allplex assay showed a higher concordance with the results of uniplex PCR and sequencing compared with those of the comparative methods. Thus, the Allplex assay is a potentially useful tool for detecting RVs in clinical laboratories where high-throughput batch testing is required.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical specimens.The institutional review board of the Samsung Medical Center approved this study. For this study, 417 clinical respiratory specimens were obtained via a total of 260 nasopharyngeal swabs, 148 nasopharyngeal aspirates, and 9 fluid samples from bronchoalveolar lavage that were collected from patients with symptoms of respiratory tract infections between December 2015 and July 2016. Patients' ages ranged from 7 days to 91 years. A total of 260 specimens (62.4%) were obtained from pediatric patients. These samples were analyzed with the AdvanSure assay. All specimens were stored at −70°C until testing with the Allplex assay with or without the PowerChek assay.

Allplex respiratory panels 1, 2, and 3.Nucleic acids were extracted from 450-μl stored specimens with 10 μl bacteriophage MS2 added as an exogenous internal control using the StarMag 96 virus kit (Seegene). The final elution volume was 100 μl for each sample. The extracted nucleic acid (8 μl) was added to a tube containing 17 μl of one-step RT-PCR premix. The Microlab Nimbus IVD system automatically performed the nucleic acid processing and PCR setup. One-step rRT-PCR was conducted using the CFX96 system (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The mixture was incubated at 50°C for 20 min for the reverse transcription step, which was followed by denaturation at 95°C for 15 min and 45 cycles of PCR (10 s at 95°C, 1 min at 60°C, 10 s at 72°C). Fluorescence was detected at two temperatures (60°C and 72°C), and a positive test result was defined as a well-defined exponential fluorescence curve that crossed the CT at a value of <42 for individual targets.

AdvanSure RV real-time PCR.The AdvanSure assay is a Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) of Korea-approved one-step rRT-PCR assay for detecting RV pathogens. The assay detects 14 different RVs, namely CoV 229E, CoV NL63, CoV OC43, PIV types 1 to 3, INF types A and B, RSV types A and B, HRV, MPV, ADV, and BoV. Procedures were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions as previously described (16). Briefly, nucleic acids from 200 μl of clinical samples were extracted into an elution volume of 100 μl by the TanBead Smart LabAssist-32 extraction system (Taiwan Advanced Nanotech, Inc., Taiwan). The rRT-PCR was conducted in a final volume of 20 μl using the Slan real-time PCR detection system (LG Life Science).

PowerChek pandemic H1N1/H3N2/H5N1 real-time PCR kit.The PowerChek assay is MFDS approved and is a CE-IVD-certified one-step rRT-PCR assay for IFN A virus subtyping. The assay detects INF A subtypes H1N1-pdm09, H3N2, and H5N1. Nucleic acids were extracted from 140-μl stored specimens and eluted in 50 μl using the QIAamp DSP viral RNA minikit (catalog no. 61904; Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. rRT-PCR was performed in a total volume of 20 μl (15 μl PCR mixture and 5 μl template RNA) using the 7500 fast real-time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Procedures were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Comparisons of the Allplex assay with the AdvanSure and PowerChek assays.Specimens with discordant results between the Allplex assay and the comparative methods (the AdvanSure or PowerChek assays) were confirmed by uniplex PCR and sequencing in a blinded manner. Primers identical to those of the Allplex and comparative methods were used for uniplex PCR and sequencing. Since the AdvanSure assay does not detect HEV and PIV type 4, we excluded those results from the comparisons with the two assays.

Analytical sensitivity and specificity of the Allplex assay.Serially diluted plasmids containing the target gene were used to determine the analytical sensitivity. The pUC19 vector was used for plasmid DNA preparation. Serial dilutions of the prepared plasmid DNA were made from 105 to 1 copies per reaction to determine the analytical sensitivity of the assay. MPV, BoV, and CoV NL63 samples were isolated from patients, and their sequences were confirmed by direct sequencing. All other standard strains were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Totals of 21 or 24 replicates of each dilution step were performed. The lower detection limit was defined as the lowest concentration that was detected in ≥95% of the replicates.

Cross-reactivity of the Allplex assay was assessed using 21 different pathogens (Table 4). The DNA was extracted from supplied samples and assayed with the Allplex assay using the same procedures that were used for sample processing.

Workflow analysis.Allplex TAT and HOT were evaluated for 24 samples. TAT was defined as the time interval between when the laboratory received the sample and when the final results were produced. HOT was defined as the time the technician spent on sample preparation.

Statistical analysis.Statistical analysis was performed using the VassarStats website (http://vassarstats.net/ ). Interrater agreement statistics (kappa calculation) were used to compare the detections of RVs between the Allplex assay and the comparative methods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by Seegene, Republic of Korea. The sponsor had no involvement in the study design, data interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 4 October 2016.
    • Returned for modification 25 October 2016.
    • Accepted 22 November 2016.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 30 November 2016.
  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Renaud C,
    2. Crowley J,
    3. Jerome KR,
    4. Kuypers J
    . 2012. Comparison of FilmArray respiratory panel and laboratory-developed real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assays for respiratory virus detection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis74:379–383. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.08.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Jernigan DB,
    2. Lindstrom SL,
    3. Johnson JR,
    4. Miller JD,
    5. Hoelscher M,
    6. Humes R,
    7. Shively R,
    8. Brammer L,
    9. Burke SA,
    10. Villanueva JM,
    11. Balish A,
    12. Uyeki T,
    13. Mustaquim D,
    14. Bishop A,
    15. Handsfield JH,
    16. Astles R,
    17. Xu X,
    18. Klimov AI,
    19. Cox NJ,
    20. Shaw MW
    . 2011. Detecting 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infection: availability of diagnostic testing led to rapid pandemic response. Clin Infect Dis52(Suppl 1):S36–S43. doi:10.1093/cid/ciq020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mahony JB,
    2. Blackhouse G,
    3. Babwah J,
    4. Smieja M,
    5. Buracond S,
    6. Chong S,
    7. Ciccotelli W,
    8. O'Shea T,
    9. Alnakhli D,
    10. Griffiths-Turner M,
    11. Goeree R
    . 2009. Cost analysis of multiplex PCR testing for diagnosing respiratory virus infections. J Clin Microbiol47:2812–2817. doi:10.1128/JCM.00556-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Adcock PM,
    2. Stout GG,
    3. Hauck MA,
    4. Marshall GS
    . 1997. Effect of rapid viral diagnosis on the management of children hospitalized with lower respiratory tract infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J16:842–846. doi:10.1097/00006454-199709000-00005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gharabaghi F,
    2. Hawan A,
    3. Drews SJ,
    4. Richardson SE
    . 2011. Evaluation of multiple commercial molecular and conventional diagnostic assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in children. Clin Microbiol Infect17:1900–1906. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03529.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Caliendo AM
    . 2011. Multiplex PCR and emerging technologies for the detection of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis52(Suppl 4):S326–S330. doi:10.1093/cid/cir047.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Tang YW,
    2. Gonsalves S,
    3. Sun JY,
    4. Stiles J,
    5. Gilhuley KA,
    6. Mikhlina A,
    7. Dunbar SA,
    8. Babady NE
    . 2016. Clinical evaluation of the Luminex NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel. J Clin Microbiol54:1912–1914. doi:10.1128/JCM.00482-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lee YJ,
    2. Kim D,
    3. Lee K,
    4. Chun JY
    . 2014. Single-channel multiplexing without melting curve analysis in real-time PCR. Sci Rep4:7439. doi:10.1038/srep07439.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Poritz MA,
    2. Blaschke AJ,
    3. Byington CL,
    4. Meyers L,
    5. Nilsson K,
    6. Jones DE,
    7. Thatcher SA,
    8. Robbins T,
    9. Lingenfelter B,
    10. Amiott E,
    11. Herbener A,
    12. Daly J,
    13. Dobrowolski SF,
    14. Teng DH,
    15. Ririe KM
    . 2011. FilmArray, an automated nested multiplex PCR system for multi-pathogen detection: development and application to respiratory tract infection. PLoS One6:e26047. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026047.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Sampath R,
    2. Hofstadler SA,
    3. Blyn LB,
    4. Eshoo MW,
    5. Hall TA,
    6. Massire C,
    7. Levene HM,
    8. Hannis JC,
    9. Harrell PM,
    10. Neuman B,
    11. Buchmeier MJ,
    12. Jiang Y,
    13. Ranken R,
    14. Drader JJ,
    15. Samant V,
    16. Griffey RH,
    17. McNeil JA,
    18. Crooke ST,
    19. Ecker DJ
    . 2005. Rapid identification of emerging pathogens: coronavirus. Emerg Infect Dis11:373–379. doi:10.3201/eid1103.040629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Gadsby NJ,
    2. Russell CD,
    3. McHugh MP,
    4. Mark H,
    5. Conway Morris A,
    6. Laurenson IF,
    7. Hill AT,
    8. Templeton KE
    . 2016. Comprehensive molecular testing for respiratory pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis62:817–823. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rand KH,
    2. Rampersaud H,
    3. Houck HJ
    . 2011. Comparison of two multiplex methods for detection of respiratory viruses: FilmArray RP and xTAG RVP. J Clin Microbiol49:2449–2453. doi:10.1128/JCM.02582-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chen JH,
    2. Lam HY,
    3. Yip CC,
    4. Wong SC,
    5. Chan JF,
    6. Ma ES,
    7. Cheng VC,
    8. Tang BS,
    9. Yuen KY
    . 2016. Clinical evaluation of the new high-throughput Luminex NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel assay for multiplex respiratory pathogen detection. J Clin Microbiol54:1820–1825. doi:10.1128/JCM.00517-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Babady NE,
    2. Mead P,
    3. Stiles J,
    4. Brennan C,
    5. Li H,
    6. Shuptar S,
    7. Stratton CW,
    8. Tang YW,
    9. Kamboj M
    . 2012. Comparison of the Luminex xTAG RVP fast assay and the Idaho Technology FilmArray RP assay for detection of respiratory viruses in pediatric patients at a cancer hospital. J Clin Microbiol50:2282–2288. doi:10.1128/JCM.06186-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Doern CD,
    2. Lacey D,
    3. Huang R,
    4. Haag C
    . 2013. Evaluation and implementation of FilmArray version 1.7 for improved detection of adenovirus respiratory tract infection. J Clin Microbiol51:4036–4039. doi:10.1128/JCM.02546-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Jung YJ,
    2. Kwon HJ,
    3. Huh HJ,
    4. Ki CS,
    5. Lee NY,
    6. Kim JW
    . 2015. Comparison of the AdvanSure real-time RT-PCR and Seeplex RV12 ACE assay for the detection of respiratory viruses. J Virol Methods224:42–46. doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2015.08.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Popowitch EB,
    2. O'Neill SS,
    3. Miller MB
    . 2013. Comparison of the Biofire FilmArray RP, Genmark eSensor RVP, Luminex xTAG RVPv1, and Luminex xTAG RVP fast multiplex assays for detection of respiratory viruses. J Clin Microbiol51:1528–1533. doi:10.1128/JCM.03368-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Kim BG,
    2. Jeong HS,
    3. Baek SY,
    4. Shin JH,
    5. Kim JO,
    6. Min KI,
    7. Ryu SR,
    8. Min BS,
    9. Kim DK,
    10. Jeong YS,
    11. Park SN
    . 2005. Validation of one-step real-time RT-PCR assay in combination with automated RNA extraction for rapid detection and quantitation of hepatitis C virus RNA for routine testing in clinical specimens. J Microbiol Biotechnol15:595–602. http://www.jmb.or.kr/journal/download.php?Filedir=../submission/Journal/015/&num=2449.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Shibib DR,
    2. Matushek SM,
    3. Beavis KG,
    4. Gawel SH,
    5. Charnot-Katsikas A
    . 2016. BioFire FilmArray respiratory panel for detection of enterovirus D68. J Clin Microbiol54:457–459. doi:10.1128/JCM.02339-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. McAllister SC,
    2. Schleiss MR,
    3. Arbefeville S,
    4. Steiner ME,
    5. Hanson RS,
    6. Pollock C,
    7. Ferrieri P
    . 2015. Epidemic 2014 enterovirus D68 cross-reacts with human rhinovirus on a respiratory molecular diagnostic platform. PLoS One10:e0118529. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118529.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Osterback R,
    2. Tevaluoto T,
    3. Ylinen T,
    4. Peltola V,
    5. Susi P,
    6. Hyypia T,
    7. Waris M
    . 2013. Simultaneous detection and differentiation of human rhino- and enteroviruses in clinical specimens by real-time PCR with locked nucleic acid probes. J Clin Microbiol51:3960–3967. doi:10.1128/JCM.01646-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes
Hee Jae Huh, Ji-Youn Kim, Hyeon Jeong Kwon, Sun Ae Yun, Myoung-Keun Lee, Nam Yong Lee, Jong-Won Kim, Chang-Seok Ki
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jan 2017, 55 (2) 479-484; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02045-16

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.
Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes
(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
Performance Evaluation of Allplex Respiratory Panels 1, 2, and 3 for Detection of Respiratory Viruses and Influenza A Virus Subtypes
Hee Jae Huh, Ji-Youn Kim, Hyeon Jeong Kwon, Sun Ae Yun, Myoung-Keun Lee, Nam Yong Lee, Jong-Won Kim, Chang-Seok Ki
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jan 2017, 55 (2) 479-484; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02045-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Genotyping Techniques
influenza A virus
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
respiratory tract infections
Virus Diseases
respiratory virus
multiplex real-time PCR
validation
Republic of Korea

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