Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29664973›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Introducing automation to the molecular diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection: A comparative study of sample treatments, DNA extraction methods and real-time PCR assays.

Alba Abras, Cristina Ballart, Teresa Llovet, Carme Roig, Cristina Gutiérrez, Silvia Tebar, Pere Berenguer, María-Jesús Pinazo, Elizabeth Posada, Joaquim Gascón and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Parasite Burden ofMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  4. Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Alba AbrasSecció de Parasitologia, Departament de Biologia, Sanitat i Medi Ambient, Facultat de Farmàcia i Ciències de l'Alimentació, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina BallartSecció de Parasitologia, Departament de Biologia, Sanitat i Medi Ambient, Facultat de Farmàcia i Ciències de l'Alimentació, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Teresa LlovetServei de Microbiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Carme RoigServei de Microbiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina GutiérrezServei de Microbiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Silvia TebarSecció de Parasitologia, Departament de Biologia, Sanitat i Medi Ambient, Facultat de Farmàcia i Ciències de l'Alimentació, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Pere BerenguerServei de Microbiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
María-Jesús PinazoISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Elizabeth PosadaISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Joaquim GascónISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Alejandro G SchijmanLaboratorio de Biología Molecular de la Enfermedad de Chagas (LaBMECh), Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería Genética y Biología Molecular "Dr. Héctor N. Torres" (INGEBI-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Montserrat GállegoSecció de Parasitologia, Departament de Biologia, Sanitat i Medi Ambient, Facultat de Farmàcia i Ciències de l'Alimentació, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8143-9773
Carmen MuñozServei de Microbiologia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESHospital de Sant Pau · ESUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARUniversitat de Girona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolymerase chain reaction (PCR) has become a useful tool for the diagnosis of Trypanosoma cruzi infection. The development of automated DNA extraction methodologies and PCR systems is an important step toward the standardization of protocols in routine diagnosis. To date, there are only two commercially available Real-Time PCR assays for the routine laboratory detection of T. cruzi DNA in clinical samples: TCRUZIDNA.CE (Diagnostic Bioprobes Srl) and RealCycler CHAG (Progenie Molecular). Our aim was to evaluate the RealCycler CHAG assay taking into account the whole process. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe assessed the usefulness of an automated DNA extraction system based on magnetic particles (EZ1 Virus Mini Kit v2.0, Qiagen) combined with a commercially available Real-Time PCR assay targeting satellite DNA (SatDNA) of T. cruzi (RealCycler CHAG), a methodology used for routine diagnosis in our hospital. It was compared with a well-known strategy combining a commercial DNA isolation kit based on silica columns (High Pure PCR Template Preparation Kit, Roche Diagnostics) with an in-house Real-Time PCR targeting SatDNA. The results of the two methodologies were in almost perfect agreement, indicating they can be used interchangeably. However, when variations in protocol factors were applied (sample treatment, extraction method and Real-Time PCR), the results were less convincing. A comprehensive fine-tuning of the whole procedure is the key to successful results. Guanidine EDTA-blood (GEB) samples are not suitable for DNA extraction based on magnetic particles due to inhibition, at least when samples are not processed immediately. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study to evaluate the RealCycler CHAG assay taking into account the overall process, including three variables (sample treatment, extraction method and Real-Time PCR). Our findings may contribute to the harmonization of protocols between laboratories and to a wider application of Real-Time PCR in molecular diagnostic laboratories associated with health centers.

Indexed as

Chagas DiseaseDNA, ProtozoanHumansReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTrypanosoma cruziDNA, Protozoan

Identifiers

PMID29664973
PMCPMC5903661
OpenAlexW2801190890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.