Inter-laboratory ring trial to compare four quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays employed for detection of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis

L. Worsley,P. L. Davies
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02210-23
IF: 3.7
2024-02-07
Microbiology Spectrum
Abstract:Our study reports the findings of an inter-laboratory ring trial comparing the performance of four different quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay services for detecting Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) infection in cattle and sheep. MAP is the causative agent of Johne’s disease (also known as paratuberculosis), a significant production-limiting disease in livestock populations with a worldwide distribution. The content of this paper is significant and novel as it is the first to highlight the marked variation between the diagnostic sensitivity and reproducibility of the three principal commercial laboratories offering MAP qPCR diagnostic and screening services in Great Britain. The low sensitivity and high variability between the laboratories are of great concern and relevance to veterinary practitioners and livestock producers.
microbiology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper primarily aims to address the following issues: 1. **Comparison of the performance of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing services provided by different laboratories**: The study compares four different qPCR testing methods for detecting Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) through an inter-laboratory ring trial. 2. **Evaluation of the consistency and reliability of testing methods**: By testing cattle and sheep fecal samples collected from 5 farms, the study analyzes the consistency of results between different laboratories and assesses the reliability and sensitivity of these testing methods in clinical practice. 3. **Identification of testing differences and their causes**: Given the impact of Johne’s disease caused by MAP on the livestock industry and the significant differences between testing methods, the paper attempts to reveal the reasons behind these differences, including sample handling, DNA extraction methods, primer selection, and other factors. Specifically, the study was implemented through two projects: - **Project 1**: Compared the performance of MAP qPCR testing services provided by three commercial laboratories (B, C, and D) with a fourth method A, which is not commercially available in the UK. - **Project 2**: Further compared the performance of laboratories A and B on different sample sets. The study found poor consistency of results between different laboratories, indicating significant variability in current testing methods. Additionally, the study pointed out several factors that might affect testing performance, such as sample volume and DNA extraction methods, and emphasized the importance of standardized testing methods.