Comparative Evaluation of Extraction Protocols for Point-Of-Need Molecular Diagnostics

iLABMED Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1002/ila2.72
Rea Maja Kobialka, Arianna Ceruti, Uwe Truyen, Ahmed Abd El Wahed
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Extraction Protocols for Point-Of-Need Molecular Diagnostics","authors":"Rea Maja Kobialka,&nbsp;Arianna Ceruti,&nbsp;Uwe Truyen,&nbsp;Ahmed Abd El Wahed","doi":"10.1002/ila2.72","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>In the rapidly evolving field of molecular diagnostics, identifying a suitable extraction method is crucial in determining the applicability of the point-of-need device. Extraction, which serves as the initial and important step in the diagnostic process, plays a vital role in the accuracy, reliability, and speed of detecting pathogens. Extraction methods range from traditional approaches like organic extraction to modern advancements such as magnetic bead-based separation, each offering unique advantages and limitations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study explored the comparative effectiveness of 10 commercially available protocols (denoted as I–X), focusing on their practicality and efficiency in point-of-need scenarios. By considering criteria such as ease of use, turnaround time, and robustness in handling different sample matrices, we aimed to highlight the critical factors that influence the selection of an appropriate extraction method for immediate and reliable diagnostic outcomes in diverse settings. The effectiveness of each protocol was evaluated by comparing the time threshold and fluorescence signal using isothermal amplification (namely reverse transcription-recombinase-aided amplification). For comparison, samples were also extracted with Qiagen spin column extraction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The performance of each protocol in extracting feline Coronavirus (FCoV) RNA differed depending on the sample type, such as nasal swab, serum, and feces. Overall, protocol VIII proved to be flexible and reliable for point-of-need diagnostics owing to its consistent extraction efficiency across different sample types and its excellent sensitivity (2 × 10<sup>1</sup> RNA copies/μL from supernatant and nasal swab and 2 × 10<sup>2</sup> RNA copies/μL from serum).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study emphasizes the significance of considering the specific sample type and diagnostic goal in selecting the right extraction protocol.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100656,"journal":{"name":"iLABMED","volume":"3 1","pages":"7-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ila2.72","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iLABMED","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ila2.72","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In the rapidly evolving field of molecular diagnostics, identifying a suitable extraction method is crucial in determining the applicability of the point-of-need device. Extraction, which serves as the initial and important step in the diagnostic process, plays a vital role in the accuracy, reliability, and speed of detecting pathogens. Extraction methods range from traditional approaches like organic extraction to modern advancements such as magnetic bead-based separation, each offering unique advantages and limitations.

Methods

This study explored the comparative effectiveness of 10 commercially available protocols (denoted as I–X), focusing on their practicality and efficiency in point-of-need scenarios. By considering criteria such as ease of use, turnaround time, and robustness in handling different sample matrices, we aimed to highlight the critical factors that influence the selection of an appropriate extraction method for immediate and reliable diagnostic outcomes in diverse settings. The effectiveness of each protocol was evaluated by comparing the time threshold and fluorescence signal using isothermal amplification (namely reverse transcription-recombinase-aided amplification). For comparison, samples were also extracted with Qiagen spin column extraction.

Results

The performance of each protocol in extracting feline Coronavirus (FCoV) RNA differed depending on the sample type, such as nasal swab, serum, and feces. Overall, protocol VIII proved to be flexible and reliable for point-of-need diagnostics owing to its consistent extraction efficiency across different sample types and its excellent sensitivity (2 × 101 RNA copies/μL from supernatant and nasal swab and 2 × 102 RNA copies/μL from serum).

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the significance of considering the specific sample type and diagnostic goal in selecting the right extraction protocol.

Abstract Image

点需要分子诊断提取方案的比较评价
在快速发展的分子诊断领域,确定一种合适的提取方法对于确定定点设备的适用性至关重要。提取作为诊断过程的第一步和重要步骤,对检测病原体的准确性、可靠性和速度起着至关重要的作用。提取方法的范围从传统的有机提取方法到现代的先进方法,如基于磁珠的分离,每种方法都有其独特的优点和局限性。方法本研究探讨了10种商用协议(用I-X表示)的比较有效性,重点关注它们在需求点场景中的实用性和效率。通过考虑诸如易用性、周转时间和处理不同样品矩阵的稳健性等标准,我们旨在强调在不同环境中影响选择适当提取方法以获得即时和可靠诊断结果的关键因素。通过等温扩增(即逆转录重组酶辅助扩增)比较时间阈值和荧光信号来评估每种方案的有效性。为了比较,还采用Qiagen自旋柱萃取法提取样品。结果不同方法提取猫冠状病毒(FCoV) RNA的效果因样品类型(如鼻拭子、血清和粪便)而异。总体而言,由于其在不同样品类型中具有一致的提取效率和出色的灵敏度(来自上清和鼻拭子的2 × 101 RNA拷贝/μL和来自血清的2 × 102 RNA拷贝/μL),第八方案被证明是灵活可靠的。结论本研究强调了在选择合适的提取方案时考虑具体的样品类型和诊断目标的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信