Comparative performance evaluation of four commercial multiplex real-time PCR assays for the detection of the diarrhoea-causing protozoa Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica

PLoS One. 2019 Apr 8;14(4):e0215068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215068. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Background: Multiplex molecular panels are relentlessly replacing conventional methods for the detection of enteric pathogens from stool samples in clinical and research laboratories. Here we evaluated four commercial multiplex real-time PCR assays for the detection of Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica.

Methods: The diagnostic performance of the Gastroenteritis/Parasite Panel I (Diagenode), the RIDAGENE Parasitic Stool Panel (R-Biopharm), the Allplex Gastrointestinal Parasite Panel 4 (Seegene) and the FTD Stool Parasites (Fast Track) real-time PCR methods was assessed against a reference panel of 126 well-characterized DNA samples including Cryptosporidium hominis (n = 29), Cryptosporidium parvum (n = 3), Giardia duodenalis (n = 47), Entamoeba histolytica (n = 3), other parasite species (n = 20), and apparently healthy subjects (n = 24).

Principal findings: Obtained diagnostic sensitivities ranged from 53-88% for Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, and from 68-100% for G. duodenalis. The R-Biopharm method achieved the best performance for the detection of Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum both in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (87.5%) and detection limit (a 100-fold increase compared to other tests). The Fast Track method was particularly suited for the detection of G. duodenalis, achieving a 100% sensitivity and a detection limit at least 10-fold superior. Detection of E. histolytica was similarly achieved by all compared methods except Diagenode.

Conclusions: Diagnostic performance varied largely depending on the method used and the targeted pathogen species. Factors including test sensitivity/specificity, cost, patient population surveyed, laboratory workflow, and diagnostic algorithm should be carefully considered when choosing the most appropriate multiplex PCR platform.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Biological Assay
  • Cryptosporidiosis / diagnosis*
  • Cryptosporidiosis / parasitology
  • Cryptosporidium parvum / genetics
  • Cryptosporidium parvum / isolation & purification
  • Diagnostic Tests, Routine / methods*
  • Diarrhea / diagnosis*
  • Diarrhea / epidemiology
  • Diarrhea / parasitology
  • Entamoeba histolytica / genetics
  • Entamoeba histolytica / isolation & purification
  • Entamoebiasis / diagnosis*
  • Entamoebiasis / parasitology
  • Feces / parasitology*
  • Giardia lamblia / genetics
  • Giardia lamblia / isolation & purification
  • Giardiasis / diagnosis*
  • Giardiasis / parasitology
  • Humans
  • Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction / methods*

Grants and funding

This study was funded by the European University of Madrid (Spain), under project 2015/UEM21 (MM). Additional funding was also provided by the Health Institute Carlos III (ISCIII), Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain), under projects CP12/03081 (DC) and PI13/01106 (IF).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.