JMD Position Available: Editor-In-Chief
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Originally published online as doi:10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060163 on April 26, 2007

Published online before print April 26, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jmoldx.2007.060163v1
9/3/401    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Richards, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Richards, C. S.
Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3
Copyright © 2007 American Society for Investigative Pathology & Association for Molecular Pathology
DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060163

A Comparative Study of Five Technologically Diverse CFTR Testing Platforms

Monique A. Johnson, Marvin J. Yoshitomi and C. Sue Richards

From the Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Molecular Diagnostic Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon

Multiple cystic fibrosis (CF) testing platforms, using diverse and rapidly evolving technologies, are available to clinical laboratories commercially or for evaluation. Considerations when choosing a CF platform may include: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, signal discrimination, ability to genotype, ability to reflex test, no calls/repeat rate, composition of mutation panel, hands-on time, start-to-finish time, integration into laboratory workflow, data analysis methods, flexibility regarding custom test design, and required instrumentation. Mindful of these considerations, we evaluated five technologically diverse CF platforms: 1) eSensor, an electronic detection assay system; 2) InPlex, a signal amplification methodology using a microfluidics card; 3) oligonucleotide ligation assay, an electrophoretic-based separation of amplicon-derived ligation-generated products; and two liquid bead arrays; 4) Signature, a direct hybridization assay using allele-specific capture probes; and 5) Tag-It, an assay using allele-specific primer extension and a universal microarray. A core of 150 samples, focusing on mutations in the American College of Medical Genetics/American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists mutation panel, was tested throughout several runs for each platform. All of the platforms performed comparably in respect to sensitivity, specificity, and no-call rate. As our results indicate, consideration of all of the parameters evaluated may be useful when selecting the most appropriate platform for the specific setting.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology.