ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Comparative analysis of laboratory-based and portable qPCR platforms: CFX, MIC, and Biomeme Franklin for African swine fever and avian influenza detection.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnosis is critical for the early detection and control of transboundary animal diseases such as African Swine Fever (ASF) and Avian Influenza (AI), particularly because it enables timely containment measures at the farm level. In low-resource settings where sample transport, cold chain maintenance, and access to centralized laboratories are challenging, portable qPCR systems offer a clear operational advantage by enabling on-site or near-site testing thus reducing diagnostic turnaround and response time. This study evaluated three qPCR platforms for detecting African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) and Avian Influenza Virus (AIV): two laboratory-based systems, CFX96 Touch (Bio-Rad) and MIC (BioMolecular Systems), and the portable qPCR platform Franklin by Biomemex. Seventy-two ASF virus samples representing genotypes I, II, IX, XIV, XXIII, and a genotype I/II recombinant from eleven countries were tested on two laboratory platforms (CFX96, MIC) and one rapid platform (Franklin) alongside 50 AI virus samples (H5N1, H9N2) from seven countries.
resultsBoth laboratory platforms achieved consistent results. Franklin required protocol optimization when the WOAH-recommended protocol produced predominantly false-negative results, but adapted amplification conditions restored performance. Limits of detection per reaction calculated by probit analysis were: CFX96 21.28 (14.85-68.67), MIC 32.76 (21.12-96.11), Franklin with lyophilized reagents 4.12 (2.71-14.97), and Franklin with adapted protocol 6.85 (4.33-20.11). After adaptation, all platforms exhibited high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for ASFV detection. For the AIV detection protocol, false negative results were observed on MIC and Franklin platforms compared to the CFX96.
conclusionsThe laboratory platforms tested in this study (CFX96 and MIC) provided robust high-throughput capabilities, while the portable system (Franklin) offered superior sensitivity but required protocol adaptation of established WOAH-recommended procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.