Technique / Molecular Biology / PCR / Nested PCR

The performance of a single-tube nested-PCR (STNPCR) technique was evaluated for plague diagnosis in comparison to conventional (one step) and two step nested PCR (NPCR). Assays were carried out with primers targeting the gene caf1 that encodes the Yersinia pestis F1 antigen. For STNPCR inner primers were immobilized onto the inside of the microtube caps and after the first amplification they were eluted by inversion of the tube. This procedure avoids opening the tube, reducing the risks of false-positive results by cross-contamination. The immobilized primers are stable for several months at -20 degrees C, thus, the tubes can be prepared beforehand and stored until use. STNPCR was more sensitive than conventional PCR, and less sensitive than NPCR. This drawback is compensated by a lower risk of cross-contamination. The experiments with infected animals showed that NPCR and STNPCR were able to produce positive results in all samples tested, despite contamination with other organisms. In contrast, conventional PCR yielded positive results in a smaller number of samples. Three out of 62 culture-negative rodents from plague areas, were positive by STNPCR. In conclusion, the PCR approaches evaluated, particularly NPCR and STNPCR have potential to be used as alternative tools in epidemiological surveys of plague. Furthermore, as the results can be obtained quickly (less than 24 hour), these techniques could be useful in emergency situations in which the rapidity in diagnosis is essential for adoption of immediate measures of control.

OBJECTIVES: To propose and verify a PCR assay for detecting Escherichia coli, Haemophilus influenzae, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus species, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Neisseria meningitidis serogroups B and C in a single sample of the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with purulent meningitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: DNA from the cerebrospinal fluid was isolated using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit. PCR was performed as two-step amplification (nested PCR). For E. coli, H. influenzae, L. monocytogenes, S. species and S. pneumoniae, universal and species-specific primers encoding bacterial 16S rDNA were used in the first and second reaction, respectively. For N. meningitidis serogroups B and C, an amplification system with primers for the SiaD gene was utilized. RESULTS: Of 25 patients examined at the beginning of their treatment, bacterial DNA was detected in the cerebrospinal fluid of 17 (68 %) of them. Those were six cases of N. meningitidis serogroup B, four of N. meningitidis serogroup C, five of S. pneumoniae, one of H. influenzae and one of L. monocytogenes. Of 7 patients in whom antibiotic therapy was initiated prior to diagnostic lumbar puncture, PCR was positive in four cases. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed nested PCR approach is faster than traditional culture methods and suitable for early laboratory diagnosis of infectious agents. When compared to culture methods, the technique offers slightly higher positivity (by 16 %). This is similar in samples analyzed after the initiation of antibiotic therapy. The PCR method never detected other bacteria than the cultured ones.

Respiratory tract infections can be caused by a heterogeneous group of viruses and bacteria that produce similar clinical presentations. Specific diagnosis therefore relies on laboratory investigation. This study developed and evaluated five groups of multiplex nested PCR assays that could simultaneously detect 21 different respiratory pathogens: influenza A virus (H1N1, H3N2, and H5N1); influenza B virus; parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, 3, 4a, and 4b; respiratory syncytial virus A and B; human rhinoviruses; human enteroviruses; human coronaviruses OC43 and 229E; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus; human metapneumoviruses; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Chlamydophila pneumoniae; Legionella pneumophila; and adenoviruses (A to F). These multiplex nested PCRs adopted fast PCR technology. The high speed of fast PCR (within 35 min) greatly improved the efficiency of these assays. The results show that these multiplex nested PCR assays are specific and more sensitive (100- to 1,000-fold) than conventional methods. Among the 303 clinical specimens tested, the multiplex nested PCR achieved an overall positive rate of 48.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.9 to 54.1%), which was significantly higher than that of virus isolation (20.1% [95% CI, 15.6 to 24.6%]) and that of direct detection by immunofluorescence assay (13.5% [95% CI, 9.7 to 17.4%]). The improved sensitivity was partly due to the higher sensitivity of multiplex nested PCR than that of conventional methods in detecting cultivatable viruses. Moreover, the ability of the multiplex nested PCR to detect noncultivatable viruses, particularly rhinoviruses, coronavirus OC43, and metapneumoviruses, contributed a major gain (15.6%) in the overall positive rate. In conclusion, rapid multiplex nested PCR assays can improve the diagnostic yield for respiratory infections to allow prompt interventive actions to be taken.