Comparative evaluation of the QIAGEN QIAsymphony® SP system and bioMérieux NucliSens easyMAG automated extraction platforms in a clinical virology laboratory

• Published in: Journal of clinical virology 2011-12, Vol.52 (4), p.339-343
• Main Authors: Lee, Adele V, Atkinson, Claire, Manuel, Rohini J, Clark, Duncan A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Allergy and Immunology; Automated extraction; Automation - methods; Biological and medical sciences; DNA/RNA virus; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Human viral diseases; Humans; Infectious Disease; Infectious diseases; Medical sciences; Microbiology; Miscellaneous; Molecular Diagnostic Techniques - methods; QIAsymphony; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic; Reproducibility of Results; Viral diseases; Virology; Virology - methods; Virus Diseases - diagnosis; Virus Diseases - virology; Viruses - classification; Viruses - genetics; Viruses - isolation & purification
• ISSN: 1386-6532; 1873-5967
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2011.08.016

Abstract Background The QIAGEN QIAsymphony® SP is an automated system that can process a variety of different sample types for nucleic acid extraction. Objectives To compare this system against the bioMérieux NucliSens easyMAG using a range of common clinical sample types. Study design Nucleic acid extracts were tested on 6 in-house real time viral PCR assays: quantitative cytomegalovirus (CMV); respiratory and enteric multiplex (10 viruses); influenza A H1N1 2009 specific H1 and N1 assays (sH1/N1); herpes simplex virus (HSV) 1, HSV 2 and varicella zoster virus (VZV) multiplex; norovirus genogroups I and II (Noro GI/II) multiplex. Results Extraction of the clinical sample by either QIAsymphony® SP or NucliSens easyMAG gave similar results for each PCR; CMV viral loads, 52 plasma samples had a mean difference (easyMAG–QIAsymphony® ) of 0.002 log10 copies/ml (s.d. 0.536), 52 whole blood samples had a mean difference of −0.232 log10 copies/ml (s.d. 0.490). Concordance for the qualitative assays were; 64/67 (95.5%) for the respiratory and enteric multiplex, all 28 (100%) for the sH1, sN1 and influenza A matrix multiplex, 33/34 (97%) for the HSV1/HSV2/VZV multiplex and all 15 (100%) for the Noro GI/II. Inter- and intra-run variation, determined for a 10-fold dilution series of CMV (5.20–3.20 log10 copies/ml), was less than 0.63 log10 copies/ml. Conclusions Our evaluation found the performance of the QIAsymphony® SP comparable to the NucliSens easyMAG for a range of sample types commonly extracted in a clinical virology laboratory. In total, 331/343 (96.5%) PCR results were concordant on samples extracted by both platforms.