Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Exploration of Antinuclear Antibodies (ANAs): Unveiling Clinical Significance, Associations with Cancer, and the Nuances of Differential Diagnosis in Positive ANA Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Association of Blood NK Cell Phenotype with the Severity of Liver Fibrosis in Patients with Chronic Viral Hepatitis C with Genotype 1 or 3
Previous Article in Journal
Pathological Findings in Hanging: Is the Traditional Knowledge Correct?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/diagnostics14030319
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Use of Singleplex and Duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays to Detect Common Intestinal Protist Parasites

by
Alejandro Dashti
1,
Henar Alonso
2,
Cristina Escolar-Miñana
3,
Pamela C. Köster
1,4,5,
Begoña Bailo
1,
David Carmena
1,6,* and
David González-Barrio
1
1
Parasitology Reference and Research Laboratory, National Centre for Microbiology, Health Institute Carlos III, 28220 Majadahonda, Spain
2
Department of Microbiology, Paediatrics, Radiology, and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Saragossa, Spain
3
Department of Animal Production and Food Science, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Zaragoza, 50013 Saragossa, Spain
4
Faculty of Health Sciences, Alfonso X El Sabio University (UAX), 28691 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain
5
Faculty of Medicine, Alfonso X El Sabio University (UAX), 28691 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain
6
CIBER Infectious Diseases (CIBERINFEC), Health Institute Carlos III, 28008 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(3), 319; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14030319
Submission received: 18 December 2023 / Revised: 24 January 2024 / Accepted: 30 January 2024 / Published: 1 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Infections)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis and Entamoeba histolytica are species of protozoa- causing diarrhoea that are common worldwide, while Entamoeba dispar, Dientamoeba fragilis and Blastocystis sp. appear to be commensal parasites whose role in pathogenicity remains controversial. We conducted the clinical evaluation of five singleplex and one duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays against a large panel of positive DNA samples (n = 358), and specifically to Cryptosporidium spp. (n = 96), G. duodenalis (n = 115), E. histolytica (n = 25) E. dispar (n = 11), Blastocystis sp. (n = 42), D. fragilis (n = 37), and related parasitic phylum species such as Apicomplexa, Euglenozoa, Microsporidia and Nematoda. DNA samples were obtained from clinical stool specimens or cultured isolates in a national reference centre. Estimated diagnostic sensitivity and specificity values were 0.94–1 for Cryptosporidium spp., 0.96–0.99 for G. duodenalis, 0.96–1 for E. histolytica, 1–1 for E. dispar, and 1–0.99 for D. fragilis in the evaluated singleplex assays. In the duplex assay for the simultaneous detection of Blastocystis sp. and D. fragilis these values were 1–0.98 and 1–0.99, respectively. Measures of diagnostic precision for repeatability and reproducibility were found to be under acceptable ranges. The assays identified six Cryptosporidium species (C. hominis, C. parvum, C. canis, C. felis, C. scrofarum, and C. ryanae), four G. duodenalis assemblages (A, B, C, and F), and six Blastocystis subtypes (ST1-ST5, and ST8). The evaluated singleplex and duplex VIASURE Real-Time PCR assays provide sensitive, practical, and cost-effective choices to the molecular diagnosis of the main diarrhoea-causing intestinal protists in clinical microbiology and research laboratories.

1. Introduction

Intestinal protozoa, including Cryptosporidium spp., Entamoeba histolytica, and Giardia duodenalis, contribute to the global burden of diarrhoeal diseases and are notably relevant to public health [1,2]. These pathogens are responsible for a wide range of gastrointestinal manifestations that lead to acute and chronic diarrhoea, abdominal pain, malnutrition, and diverse long-term sequelae [3,4,5]. In addition, impaired linear growth and cognition have been documented in young children, particularly those living in resource-poor settings [6,7]. Both Cryptosporidium spp. and G. duodenalis are also major causes of waterborne and foodborne gastrointestinal disease outbreaks that are mostly detected in medium- to high-income countries [8,9]. Not surprisingly, Cryptosporidium spp., G. duodenalis, and E. histolytica are responsible for seven out of ten gastrointestinal parasites that are annually diagnosed in European clinical settings [10]. Although Entamoeba dispar is generally considered non-pathogenic, its common presence in human stool samples can, because of its morphological similarity to pathogenic E. histolytica, impair diagnostic efforts [11]. Blastocystis sp. and Dientamoeba fragilis are other intestinal protists that have been recognized as potential contributors to intestinal and extraintestinal manifestations [12,13,14], although the fact that both microorganisms are often found in individuals without obvious clinical manifestations complicates their consideration as primary pathogens.
Molecular assays based on real-time PCR (qPCR) are rapidly replacing conventional detection methods (e.g., microscopy) in the first line diagnosis of diarrhoea-causing intestinal protists that have a tendency to move rapidly from detection of a single pathogen to detection of multiple pathogens. This tendency is particularly evident in medium- to high-income countries with well-equipped clinical laboratories, where the gastrointestinal disease burden of protists is low and diagnostic sensitivity is an issue [15,16]. The benefits of qPCR include:(i) high throughput of stool screening, (ii) simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens within a single sample, and (iii) fast and accurate generation of results, enabling timely clinical decisions and swift interventions [17,18,19,20]. In resource allocation, qPCR assays minimize the need for repeated sample processing and analysis, reduce turnaround times, and improve workflows and operational efficiency in a cost-effective manner [21,22].
The validation of new commercially available diagnostic assays is one of the main tasks performed by national reference centres, which can bring together technical resources (e.g., biological samples for reference purposes, equipment) and expertise to perform the task efficiently. Here, we evaluated the clinical diagnostic performance of five singleplex and one duplex VIASURE Real-Time PCR assays in the detection and identification of common and clinically relevant intestinal protist parasites that affect the human gut, including Blastocystis sp., Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, Entamoeba dispar, Entamoeba histolytica, and Giardia duodenalis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics Statement

The study design and consent procedures of this survey have been approved by the research ethics committee of the Carlos III Instituto de Salud Carlos III (reference number CEI PI17_2017-v3). All human DNA samples were anonymised by using a unique laboratory identifier code, ensuring anonymity and patient confidentiality. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and those of good clinical practice.

2.2. Study Design

This comparative and retrospective observational study is carried out to evaluate the clinical diagnostic performance of five singleplex and one duplex VIASURE Real-Time PCR assays in detecting and differentiating Blastocystis sp., Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, E. dispar, E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis from a panel (n = 358) of well-characterized DNA samples.

2.3. DNA Reference Panel

A panel of DNA samples that tested positive for Blastocystis sp. (n = 42), Cryptosporidium spp. (n = 96), D. fragilis (n = 37), E. dispar (n = 11), E. histolytica (n = 25), G. duodenalis (n = 115), and other parasitic species of the phyla Apicomplexa (n = 14), Euglenozoa (n = 8), Microsporidia (n = 4), and Nematoda (n = 6), were included in the study (Table 1).
Samples of DNA were extracted and purified by applying the QIAamp DNA stool mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) to clinical stool specimens or cultured isolates obtained during routine testing at the Parasitology Reference and Research Laboratory (PRRL) of the Spanish National Centre for Microbiology (SNCM) in Majadahonda in the period 2014–2019. The human samples were taken from patients of all age groups (median age, 10.5 years; standard deviation, 14.9 years; range, 1 to 75 years), although a number of samples were of animal origin, particularly those belonging to species/genotypes adapted to animals or that rarely circulate in humans. All DNA samples were molecularly confirmed by singleplex PCR at the point of initial diagnosis. The singleplex PCR protocols used for the primary detection and differentiation of Blastocystis sp., Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, E. dispar, E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis are fully described in Annexe I of the supplementary material. Where possible, Sanger sequencing was carried out to identify species and genotypes, and all DNA samples were stored at −20 °C until analysis. The complete dataset, including all information about the DNA samples used and the detailed diagnostic results obtained, can be found in Table S1 of the supplementary material. The very same DNA reference panel has been previously used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kit in identifying Cryptosporidium, Giardia and E. histolytica [23].

2.4. Assays

Five singleplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR kits used to detect Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, E. dispar, E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis were evaluated, and a duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR kit used to simultaneously detect Blastocystis sp. and D. fragilis was also included in the study. The main features of the evaluated kits are summarized in Table 2. Each VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kit includes all the necessary components for the real-time PCR assay (specific primers/probes, dNTPS, buffer and polymerase) in a stabilised format, and an exogenous internal control (EIC) to rule out inhibition of polymerase activity in each well. Assays were performed in strict accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions by using the DT Prime real-time PCR system (DNA Technologies, Moscow, Russia). The used thermal profile included 1 cycle at 95 °C for 2 min, for polymerase activation; followed by 45 cycles at 95 °C for 10 s and 60 °C for 50 s, for denaturation and annealing-extension. To avoid bias, all DNA samples were blindly analysed in triplicate. A sample was considered positive if the obtained cycle threshold (CT) value was below 40 and the EIC was positive. Samples with CT values above 40 were considered negative, even with a positive EIC result. A positive (non-infectious synthetic DNA in lyophilized format) and a negative (molecular biology grade water) control (provided in the kit) were used in each run.

2.5. Analyses

Cohen’s kappa test was calculated to assess the concordance of diagnostic results obtained with VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection assays and reference singleplex PCR methods used during routine initial diagnostic testing. Cohen’s kappa ranges from zero (no agreement between the two assessors) to one (perfect agreement between the two assessors). A Cohen’s kappa value between 0.81 and 0.99 is considered “near perfect agreement”. Clinical diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, and negative and positive predicted values (with 95% confidence intervals), were calculated by using the free MetaDiSc 1.4 software [24] on the basis of the following formulae:
Sensitivity (Se) = [a/(a + c)] × 100
Specificity (Sp) = [d/(b + d)] × 100
Positive predictive value (PPV) = [a/(a + b)] × 100
Negative predictive value (NPV) = [d/(c + d)] × 100
where a = true positive samples, b = false positive samples, c = false negative samples and d = true negative samples. Reference DNA samples that tested positive for Blastocystis sp., Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, E. dispar, E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis that yielded a negative result in the VIASURE assay, were reassessed by using conventional singleplex PCR. DNA samples with a negative result in the VIASURE assay and a positive result in the subsequent confirmatory conventional singleplex PCR were considered to be true false negatives.
To assess the precision of measurements, intra-assay (repeatability) and inter-assay (reproducibility) estimations were carried out with selected stool DNA samples that tested positive for Blastocystis sp., Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, and E. histolytica (five each). For intra-assay analyses, five replicates of each stool DNA sample were tested. For practicality purposes, these experiments were conducted by using the multiplex versions of the qPCR assays, including the CerTest VIASURE Cryptosporidium, Giardia, & E. histolytica Real-Time PCR detection kit (Batch: KGE112H-030; expiry date: 1 August 2022) and the CerTest VIASURE Blastocystis sp. & D. fragilis Real-Time PCR detection kit (Batch: BLD112H-019; Expiry date: 31 March 2025). Validation criteria included the standard deviation (σ) values ≤ 2 and coefficient of variation (CV%) values ≤ 10.3.

3. Results

Table 3 shows the agreement of results between the evaluated singleplex/duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits and the reference PCR methods used in the initial diagnosis.
The singleplex VIASURE Cryptosporidium spp. assay correctly identified 94.8% (91/96) of the DNA samples that tested positive for this pathogen (92 of human and 4 of wildlife origin, respectively). The assay recognized isolates belonging to six distinct Cryptosporidium species, including primarily anthroponotic C. hominis (gp60 subtype families Ia, Ib, and Ie), zoonotic C. parvum (gp60 subtype families IIa, IIc, and IId), canine-adapted C. canis, feline-adapted C. felis, bovine-adapted C. ryanae, and suine-adapted C. scrofarum (Table S1). It is noteworthy that 66.7% (64/96) of samples were monoinfected with Cryptosporidium spp., and the remaining were concomitantly infected with Blastocystis sp. (19.8%, 19/96), followed by G. duodenalis (18.8%, 18/96), D. fragilis (8.3%, 8/96) and E. dispar (1.0%, 1/96) in nine different combinations (Table S1).
Regarding G. duodenalis, the singleplex VIASURE Giardia assay accurately detected 96.5% (111/115) of the DNA samples positive for this protozoon, including zoonotic assemblages A and B, canine-adapted assemblage C, and feline-adapted assemblage F (Table S1). Overall, 45.2% (52/115) of samples were monoinfected with G. duodenalis and the remaining were concomitantly infected by Blastocystis sp. (39.1%, 45/115), followed by D. fragilis (29.6%, 34/115), E. dispar (6.1%, 7/115), and Cryptosporidium spp. (4.3%, 5/115), in eight different combinations (Table S1).
Similarly, the singleplex VIASURE E. histolytica assay correctly identified 96.0% (24/25) of the DNA samples positive for this pathogen (Table S1). Overall, 76.0% (19/25) of samples were monoinfected with E. histolytica. All six remaining Entamoeba-positive samples were co-infected with Blastocystis sp. (24.0%, 6/25) (Table S1).
The singleplex VIASURE assays for the detection of E. dispar and D. fragilis correctly identified 100% (11/11 and 37/37, respectively) of the DNA samples positive for these protists (Table S1). All 11 E. dispar-positive samples were co-infected with enteric protist species, including Blastocystis sp. (90.9%, 10/11), D. fragilis and G. duodenalis (36.4%, 4/11 each) and Cryptosporidium spp. (9.1%, 1/11), in five different combinations. Out of the 37 Dientamoeba-positive samples, 32.4% (12/37) corresponded to monoinfections by protozoan and the remaining were coinfected by Blastocystis sp. (59.5%, 22/37), G. duodenalis (10.8%, 4/37), and E. dispar (8.1%, 3/37), in four different combinations (Table S1).
With regard to the duplex VIASURE Real-Time PCR for the simultaneous detection of D. fragilis and Blastocystis sp., the assay correctly identified all (37/37 and 42/42, respectively) DNA samples positive for these protists (Table S1). This assay performed equally well as the singleplex counterpart in detecting D. fragilis. Of the 42 Blastocystis-positive samples, 81.0% (34/42) corresponded to monoinfections by this protozoan, and the remainder were coinfected by G. duodenalis (16.7%, 7/42), E. dispar (4.8%, 2/42), and D. fragilis (2.4%, 1/42), in three different combinations (Table S1).
The singleplex VIASURE assays yielded 10 false-negative results (five Cryptosporidium spp., four G. duodenalis, and one E. histolytica) during testing. Successful EIC amplification of all 10 samples discarded the possibility of PCR inhibition. Reassessment of the five Cryptosporidium spp. samples (four C. hominis, one C. parvum) with the reference PCR method yielded positive results in all five cases, which the VIASURE Cryptosporidium assay confirmed to be false-negative results (Table S1). Reassessments of the four G. duodenalis samples and the single E. histolytica sample with their corresponding reference PCR methods also yielded positive results (range of CT values: 30.9–41.0) in all cases, and the VIASURE Giardia and the VIASURE E. histolytica assays confirmed they were false-negative results (Table S1).
Of the 32 DNA samples used to determine potential cross-reactions, none yielded false-positive results when testing for Cryptosporidium spp., G. duodenalis, E. histolytica, and E. dispar (Table S1). However, four DNA samples cross-reacted with Blastocystis sp., including isolates initially positive for Cystoisospora sp. (n = 1), Leishmania infantum (n = 1), and Enterocytozoon bieneusi (n = 2). An additional sample that was initially positive for E. bieneusi cross-reacted with D. fragilis (Table S1). In addition, one human and one non-human primate sample harboured co-infections of G. duodenalis and Blastocystis, respectively, after both were previously detected by initial diagnosis (Table S1).
Overall, very good agreement (Kappa test values ≥ 0.96) was observed between the results obtained by all VIASURE singleplex/duplex assays and those previously obtained by the reference PCR methods in the initial diagnosis (Table 3).
Taking PCR results obtained during routine initial diagnosis as our reference, we summarize the diagnostic performance of the singleplex/duplex VIASURE assays evaluated here in Table 4. In brief, sensitivity values for the five enteroparasites ranged from 0.94–1.00, specificity values from 0.97–1.00, positive predictive values from 0.89–1.00, and negative predictive values from 0.98–1.00.
Measures of diagnostic precision of repeatability (Table 5) and reproducibility (Table 6) were under acceptable ranges, with the exception of a positive E. histolytica sample that failed to be amplified by the CerTest VIASURE Cryptosporidium, Giardia, & E. histolytica Real-Time PCR detection kit.

4. Discussion

We carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the diagnostic performance of five singleplex (Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, E. dispar, E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis) and a duplex (Blastocystis sp. and D. fragilis) CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR assays. Cryptosporidium spp., E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis are the three most clinically relevant intestinal protozoan parasites, and Blastocystis sp., D. fragilis, and E. dispar are common protist species of uncertain pathogenicity.
Most previous similar studies that evaluated commercial qPCR assays used prospectively collected stool samples that were submitted for routine investigation in clinical settings [21,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. In contrast, this survey purposely used a DNA panel with a wide diversity of parasite species and genotypes, with the aim of providing an evidence-based answer to the question of if the evaluated qPCR assays were suitable for the detection of less common or rare species/genotypes and animal-adapted genetic variants with known zoonotic potential and diverse geographical origins. This is important for intestinal protist species with large genetic diversities, such as Cryptosporidium spp., G. duodenalis, and Blastocystis sp.
Of 50 valid Cryptosporidium species [34], 19 have been reported in humans, with C. hominis and C. parvum accounting for ca. 90% of the human cases of cryptosporidiosis reported globally [35]. The VIASURE Cryptosporidium assay was able to detect C. hominis (including subtype families Ia, Ib, and Ie), C. parvum (including subtype families IIa, IIc, and IId), and animal-adapted C. canis, C. felis, C. ryanae, and C. scrofarum. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of this assay in the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. were 0.94 and 1, respectively. These values were very similar to those obtained with the singleplex and multiplex versions of the assay in previous studies (0.96–1 and 0.99–1, respectively) [23,32]. The sensitivity performance of the VIASURE Cryptosporidium assay is also comparable with those (0.96–1) documented for other commercially available qPCR kits, including the EasyScreen Enteric Parasite Detection Kit (Genetic Signatures, Sydney, Australia) and the FilmArray Gastrointestinal Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) [21,27]. Lower scores (0.53–0.96) were obtained with the BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), the FTD Stool Parasites (FAST-Track Diagnostics, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), the Gastroenteritis/Parasite Panel I (DIAGENODE, Liège, Belgium), and the RIDA®GENE Parasitic Stool Panel II (R-Biopharm AG, Pfungstadt, Germany), assays, respectively [10,25,26,31,32].
Giardia duodenalis consists of eight distinct assemblages (A–H) that differ in host specificity, with assemblages A and B being most commonly reported in humans and several other mammal species [36,37]. Sporadic cases of human infection, by canine-adapted assemblages C/D, feline-adapted assemblage F and ungulate-adapted assemblage E, have also been reported, particularly in children and immunocompromised patients [38,39]. The VIASURE Giardia assay was able to identify most of the aforementioned G. duodenalis assemblages (no D and E isolates were available for testing in this study), demonstrating its usefulness in detecting human and zoonotic genetic variants of the parasite. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of The VIASURE Giardia assay were 0.94 and 0.99, respectively. More variable results (sensitivity: 0.81–0.97; specificity: 0.94–1) were obtained with the singleplex and multiplex versions of the assay by previous studies [23,32]. It is important to note that other commercially available qPCR assays for the detection of G. duodenalis have consistently achieved diagnostic sensitivities over 0.97, including the BD MAX [25,26], the FilmArray [21], and the NanoCHIP Gastrointestinal Panel (Savyon Diagnostics, Ashdod, IL, USA) [29,30] methods. In contrast, the Gastroenteritis/Parasite Panel I has shown poorer performance (0.68–0.76) [31,32].
Entamoeba histolytica displays a relatively low level of nucleotide diversity in non-repetitive loci and is not subdivided into intra-species genetic variants for genotyping purposes [40]. This limited genetic variability eases the molecular detection of the parasite. The VIASURE E. histolytica assay achieved sensitivity and specificity values of 0.96 and 1, respectively, which is consistent with previous studies, which obtained similar values through the same assay and its multiplex variant (sensitivity: 0.96–1; specificity: 1) [23,32].
Similar, but slightly lower, diagnostic sensitivities (0.92–0.95) have also been reported after the BD MAX [25,26], EasyScreen [21], and Luminex xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (Luminex Molecular Diagnostics, Toronto, ON, Canada) [29] methods were used.
E. dispar, which is morphologically identical to E. histolytica and closely related to it, is a common finding in human stools that is thought to be avirulent [41], meaning differential diagnosis of E. histolytica and E. dispar is important in areas where both species occur sympatrically. However, few commercial qPCR-based methods are available for this purpose [32,42], and the VIASURE E. dispar assay achieved sensitivity and specificity values of 1, higher than those (sensitivity: 0.95–0.96; specificity: 1) obtained by similar previous studies [32,42].
Dientamoeba fragilis isolates also have a very low level of genetic variability, regardless of geographic area of origin or the presence/absence of clinical manifestations. To date, two D. fragilis genotypes (1 and 2) have been recognized, with a strong predominance of genotype 1, in humans [43]. The VIASURE D. fragilis assay achieved sensitivity and specificity values of 1 and 0.99 (respectively) in both singleplex and duplex versions. This diagnostic performance was in the higher range of what was previously documented in the use of other commercially available qPCR assays (sensitivity: 0.90–0.96; specificity: 1) [32,33].
Blastocystis sp. is a frequent protist that colonizes/infects the human gastrointestinal tract. To date, 40 Blastocystis subtypes, including ST1-ST17, ST21, and ST23-ST44, are considered taxonomically valid [44,45,46,47,48]. The VIASURE Blastocystis + D. fragilis assay was able to identify ST1–ST4 (the most frequent STs circulating in humans), in addition to ST5 and ST8. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of The VIASURE Giardia assay were 0.94 and 0.99, respectively. Overall, these figures were superior to those obtained with other commercial qPCR assays, including the Allplex Gastrointestinal Panel-Parasite assay (Seegene, Seoul, Korea; sensitivity: 0.84–1; specificity: 0.81–082) [49,50] or the LIGHTMIX Gastro Parasite assay (Tib MolBiol, Berlin, Germany; sensitivity: 0.99; specificity: 0.89) [49]. Here it should be noted that the diagnostic performance of the latter assay did not consider the subtype of the isolates investigated.
Direct comparison of results obtained in different studies that evaluate the diagnostic performance of commercial qPCR assays should consider a number of factors, including panel sample size (low sample numbers are likely to result in inaccurate and inconsistent estimates) and composition (genetic diversity of rare or less frequent species/genotypes might affect amplification success rates), sample (reflecting parasite load and sometimes virulence/pathogenicity), and the diagnostic method used as a gold standard.
Part of this study’s advantage over predecessors lies in its careful selection of a large panel of molecularly confirmed DNA samples (PCR and Sanger sequencing) for analysis. This advantage notwithstanding, we are aware that some relevant pathogenic and commensal protozoan species were missing from our panel, including C. meleagridis (the third most common cause of cryptosporidiosis in humans) and also potentially cross-reactive species, including Cyclospora cayetanensis, Entamoeba coli, Endolimax nana and Encephalitozoon intestinalis, amongst others. Future studies should address this issue of missing species.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the singleplex and duplex VIASURE Real-Time PCR assays evaluated in the present study provide suitable choices for the molecular diagnosis of Blastocystis sp., Cryptosporidium spp., D. fragilis, E. dispar, E. histolytica, and G. duodenalis during routine clinical practice. Another advantage of these kits is their ready-to-use, stabilised format, which reduces the number of time-consuming steps in the laboratory and allows storage at room temperature. In highlighting the benefits (increased throughput and diagnostic capacity, and reduced response time and improved laboratory workflow) of singleplex and multiplex real-time PCR assays, our data supports their routine use to detect enteric protozoan parasites in laboratory diagnostics.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics14030319/s1, Table S1: The full dataset including all the information of the DNA samples used and the detailed diagnostic results obtained. References [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: D.C. and D.G.-B. data curation: D.C. and D.G.-B. formal analysis: A.D., H.A., C.E.-M., D.C. and D.G.-B. funding acquisition: D.C. investigation: A.D., H.A., C.E.-M., P.C.K., B.B., D.C. and D.G.-B. methodology: A.D., H.A., C.E.-M., P.C.K., B.B., D.C. and D.G.-B. supervision: D.C. writing—original draft: D.C. and D.G.-B. writing—review and editing: all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Health Institute Carlos III (PI19CIII/00029). A.D. received a pre-doctoral fellowship funded by the Health Institute Carlos III (FI20CIII/00002). H.A. received a Torres Quevedo research contract funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PTQ018-009754). D.G.B. received a Sara Borrell research contract funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (CD19CIII/00011).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study’s design and consent procedures were approved by the research ethics committee of the Carlos III Health Institute (reference number CEI PI17_2017-v3). All human DNA samples were anonymized by using a unique laboratory identifier code, guaranteeing patient anonymity and confidentiality. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The full dataset, including all information about the DNA samples used and the detailed diagnostic results obtained, is in Table S1, in the supplemental material.

Acknowledgments

We thank CerTest Biotec S.L. for providing the reagents used in this study. We thank Rafael Calero-Bernal (Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) for providing Besnoitia, Neospora, Sarcocystis, and Toxoplasma DNA samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Stark, D.; Barratt, J.L.; van Hal, S.; Marriott, D.; Harkness, J.; Ellis, J.T. Clinical significance of enteric protozoa in the immunosuppressed human population. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2009, 22, 634–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fletcher, S.M.; Stark, D.; Harkness, J.; Ellis, J. Enteric protozoa in the developed world: A public health perspective. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 25, 420–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mmbaga, B.T.; Houpt, E.R. Cryptosporidium and Giardia infections in children: A review. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 64, 837–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hemphill, A.; Müller, N.; Müller, J. Comparative pathobiology of the intestinal protozoan parasites Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica, and Cryptosporidium parvum. Pathogens 2019, 8, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allain, T.; Buret, A.G. Pathogenesis and post-infectious complications in giardiasis. Adv. Parasitol. 2020, 107, 173–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Berkman, D.S.; Lescano, A.G.; Gilman, R.H.; Lopez, S.L.; Black, M.M. Effects of stunting, diarrhoeal disease, and parasitic infection during infancy on cognition in late childhood: A follow-up study. Lancet 2002, 359, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dougherty, M.; Bartelt, L.A. Giardia and growth impairment in children in high-prevalence settings: Consequence or co-incidence? Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 35, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Fradette, M.S.; Culley, A.I.; Charette, S.J. Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in environmental water samples: A journey into the past and new perspectives. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ma, J.Y.; Li, M.Y.; Qi, Z.Z.; Fu, M.; Sun, T.F.; Elsheikha, H.M.; Cong, W. Waterborne protozoan outbreaks: An update on the global, regional, and national prevalence from 2017 to 2020 and sources of contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Laude, A.; Valot, S.; Desoubeaux, G.; Argy, N.; Nourrisson, C.; Pomares, C.; Machouart, M.; Le Govic, Y.; Dalle, F.; Botterel, F.; et al. Is real-time PCR-based diagnosis similar in performance to routine parasitological examination for the identification of Giardia intestinalis, Cryptosporidium parvum/Cryptosporidium hominis and Entamoeba histolytica from stool samples? Evaluation of a new commercial multiplex PCR assay and literature review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 190.e1–190.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ximénez, C.; Morán, P.; Rojas, L.; Valadez, A.; Gómez, A. Reassessment of the epidemiology of amebiasis: State of the art. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2009, 9, 1023–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Garcia, L.S. Dientamoeba fragilis, one of the neglected intestinal protozoa. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2016, 54, 2243–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Stensvold, C.R.; Clark, C.G. Current status of Blastocystis: A personal view. Parasitol. Int. 2016, 65, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rostami, A.; Riahi, S.M.; Haghighi, A.; Saber, V.; Armon, B.; Seyyedtabaei, S.J. The role of Blastocystis sp. and Dientamoeba fragilis in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 2361–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van Lieshout, L.; Verweij, J.J. Newer diagnostic approaches to intestinal protozoa. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 23, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Verweij, J.J.; Stensvold, C.R. Molecular testing for clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations of intestinal parasitic infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 371–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. de Boer, R.F.; Ott, A.; Kesztyüs, B.; Kooistra-Smid, A.M. Improved detection of five major gastrointestinal pathogens by use of a molecular screening approach. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 4140–4146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stensvold, C.R.; Lebbad, M.; Verweij, J.J. The impact of genetic diversity in protozoa on molecular diagnostics. Trends Parasitol. 2011, 27, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Verweij, J. Application of PCR-based methods for diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in the clinical laboratory. Parasitology 2014, 141, 1863–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schuurs, T.A.; Koelewijn, R.; Brienen, E.A.T.; Kortbeek, T.; Mank, T.G.; Mulder, B.; Stelma, F.F.; van Lieshout, L.; van Hellemond, J.J. Harmonization of PCR-based detection of intestinal pathogens: Experiences from the Dutch external quality assessment scheme on molecular diagnosis of protozoa in stool samples. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2018, 56, 1722–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Buss, S.N.; Leber, A.; Chapin, K.; Fey, P.D.; Bankowski, M.J.; Jones, M.K.; Rogatcheva, M.; Kanack, K.J.; Bourzac, K.M. Multicenter evaluation of the BioFire FilmArray gastrointestinal panel for etiologic diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. van Lieshout, L.; Roestenberg, M. Clinical consequences of new diagnostic tools for intestinal parasites. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dashti, A.; Alonso, H.; Escolar-Miñana, C.; Köster, P.C.; Bailo, B.; Carmena, D.; González-Barrio, D. Evaluation of a novel commercial real-time PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0053122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zamora, J.; Abraira, V.; Muriel, A.; Khan, K.; Coomarasamy, A. Meta-DiSc: A software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2006, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Batra, R.; Judd, E.; Eling, J.; Newsholme, W.; Goldenberg, S.D. Molecular detection of common intestinal parasites: A performance evaluation of the BD Max enteric parasite panel. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2016, 35, 1753–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Madison-Antenucci, S.; Relich, R.F.; Doyle, L.; Espina, N.; Fuller, D.; Karchmer, T.; Lainesse, A.; Mortensen, J.E.; Pancholi, P.; Veros, W.; et al. Multicenter evaluation of BD Max enteric parasite real-time PCR assay for detection of Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium hominis, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Entamoeba histolytica. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2016, 54, 2681–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stark, D.; Roberts, T.; Ellis, J.T.; Marriott, D.; Harkness, J. Evaluation of the EasyScreen enteric parasite detection kit for the detection of Blastocystis spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Dientamoeba fragilis, Entamoeba complex, and Giardia intestinalis from clinical stool samples. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014, 78, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McAuliffe, G.N.; Anderson, T.P.; Stevens, M.; Adams, J.; Coleman, R.; Mahagamasekera, P.; Young, S.; Henderson, T.; Hofmann, M.; Jennings, L.; et al. Systematic application of multiplex PCR enhances the detection of bacteria, parasites, and viruses in stool samples. J. Infect. 2013, 67, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Perry, M.D.; Corden, S.A.; Howe, R.A. Evaluation of the Luminex xTAG gastrointestinal pathogen panel and the Savyon Diagnostics gastrointestinal infection panel for the detection of enteric pathogens in clinical samples. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 63, 1419–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ken Dror, S.; Pavlotzky, E.; Barak, M. Evaluation of the NanoCHIP Gastrointestinal Panel (GIP) test for simultaneous detection of parasitic and bacterial enteric pathogens in fecal specimens. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Paulos, S.; Saugar, J.M.; de Lucio, A.; Fuentes, I.; Mateo, M.; Carmena, D. 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, 14, e0215068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Basmaciyan, L.; François, A.; Vincent, A.; Valot, S.; Bonnin, A.; Costa, D.; Razakandrainibe, R.; Morio, F.; Favennec, L.; Dalle, F. Commercial simplex and multiplex PCR assays for the detection of intestinal parasites Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba spp., and Cryptosporidium spp.: Comparative evaluation of seven commercial PCR kits with routine in-house simplex PCR assays. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sánchez, I.; Dashti, A.; Köster, P.C.; Bailo, B.; González, N.; Allende, J.; Stensvold, C.R.; Carmena, D.; González-Barrio, D. Development, optimisation and validation of a novel multiplex real-time PCR method for the simultaneous detection of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis and Dientamoeba fragilis. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tůmová, L.; Ježková, J.; Prediger, J.; Holubová, N.; Sak, B.; Konečný, R.; Květoňová, D.; Hlásková, L.; Rost, M.; McEvoy, J.; et al. Cryptosporidium mortiferum n. sp. (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporidiidae), the species causing lethal cryptosporidiosis in Eurasian red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris). Parasit. Vectors 2023, 16, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Feng, Y.; Ryan, U.M.; Xiao, L. Genetic diversity and population structure of Cryptosporidium. Trends Parasitol. 2018, 34, 997–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ryan, U.M.; Feng, Y.; Fayer, R.; Xiao, L. Taxonomy and molecular epidemiology of Cryptosporidium and Giardia—A 50 year perspective (1971–2021). Int. J. Parasitol. 2021, 51, 1099–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cai, W.; Ryan, U.; Xiao, L.; Feng, Y. Zoonotic giardiasis: An update. Parasitol. Res. 2021, 120, 4199–4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Squire, S.A.; Ryan, U. Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Africa: Current and future challenges. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Villamizar, X.; Higuera, A.; Herrera, G.; Vasquez-A, L.R.; Buitron, L.; Muñoz, L.M.; Gonzalez-C, F.E.; Lopez, M.C.; Giraldo, J.C.; Ramírez, J.D. Molecular and descriptive epidemiology of intestinal protozoan parasites of children and their pets in Cauca, Colombia: A cross-sectional study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Weedall, G.D.; Clark, C.G.; Koldkjaer, P.; Kay, S.; Bruchhaus, I.; Tannich, E.; Paterson, S.; Hall, N. Genomic diversity of the human intestinal parasite Entamoeba histolytica. Genome Biol. 2012, 13, R38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Diamond, L.S.; Clark, C.G. A redescription of Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 (Emended Walker, 1911) separating it from Entamoeba dispar Brumpt, 1925. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 1993, 40, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Morio, F.; Valot, S.; Laude, A.; Desoubeaux, G.; Argy, N.; Nourrisson, C.; Pomares, C.; Machouart, M.; Le Govic, Y.; Dalle, F.; et al. Evaluation of a new multiplex PCR assay (ParaGENIE G-Amoeba Real-Time PCR kit) targeting Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar/Entamoeba moshkovskii from stool specimens: Evidence for the limited performances of microscopy-based approach for amoeba species identification. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24, 1205–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cacciò, S.M. Molecular epidemiology of Dientamoeba fragilis. Acta Trop. 2018, 184, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hernández-Castro, C.; Maloney, J.G.; Agudelo-López, S.P.; Toro-Londoño, M.A.; Botero-Garcés, J.H.; Orozco, M.C.; Quintero-Quinchia, Y.C.; Correa-Cote, J.C.; Múnera-Duque, A.; Ricaurte-Ciro, J.C.; et al. Identification and validation of novel Blastocystis subtype ST41 in a Colombian patient undergoing colorectal cancer screening. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2023, 70, e12978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Maloney, J.G.; Molokin, A.; Seguí, R.; Maravilla, P.; Martínez-Hernández, F.; Villalobos, G.; Tsaousis, A.D.; Gentekaki, E.; Muñoz-Antolí, C.; Klisiowicz, D.R.; et al. Identification and molecular characterization of four new Blastocystis subtypes designated ST35–ST38. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stensvold, C.R.; Berg, R.P.K.D.; Maloney, J.G.; Molokin, A.; Santin, M. Molecular characterization of Blastocystis and Entamoeba of muskoxen and sheep in Greenland. Int. J. Parasitol. 2023, 53, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yu, M.; Yao, Y.; Xiao, H.; Xie, M.; Xiong, Y.; Yang, S.; Ni, Q.; Zhang, M.; Xu, H. Extensive prevalence and significant genetic differentiation of Blastocystis in high- and low-altitude populations of wild rhesus macaques in China. Parasit. Vectors 2023, 16, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Santin, M.; Figueiredo, A.; Molokin, A.; George, N.S.; Köster, P.C.; Dashti, A.; González-Barrio, D.; Carmena, D.; Maloney, J.G. Division of Blastocystis ST10 into three new subtypes: ST42–ST44. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2023, 71, e12998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Köller, T.; Hahn, A.; Altangerel, E.; Verweij, J.J.; Landt, O.; Kann, S.; Dekker, D.; May, J.; Loderstädt, U.; Podbielski, A.; et al. Comparison of commercial and in-house real-time PCR platforms for 15 parasites and microsporidia in human stool samples without a gold standard. Acta Trop. 2020, 207, 105516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Nourrisson, C.; Brunet, J.; Flori, P.; Moniot, M.; Bonnin, V.; Delbac, F.; Poirier, P. Comparison of DNA extraction methods and real-time PCR assays for the detection of Blastocystis sp. in stool specimens. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Scicluna, S.M.; Tawari, B.; Clark, C.G. DNA barcoding of Blastocystis. Protist 2006, 157, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Tiangtip, R.; Jongwutiwes, S. Molecular analysis of Cryptosporidium species isolated from HIV-infected patients in Thailand. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2002, 7, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Feltus, D.C.; Giddings, C.W.; Schneck, B.L.; Monson, T.; Warshauer, D.; McEvoy, J.M. Evidence supporting zoonotic transmission of Cryptosporidium spp. in Wisconsin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 4303–4308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Stark, D.; Beebe, N.; Marriott, D.; Ellis, J.; Harkness, J. Detection of Dientamoeba fragilis in fresh stool specimens using PCR. Int. J. Parasitol. 2005, 35, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gutiérrez-Cisneros, M.J.; Cogollos, R.; López-Vélez, R.; Martín-Rabadán, P.; Martínez-Ruiz, R.; Subirats, M.; Merino, F.J.; Fuentes, I. Application of real-time PCR for the differentiation of Entamoeba histolytica and E. dispar in cyst-positive faecal samples from 130 immigrants living in Spain. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 2010, 104, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Verweij, J.J.; Oostvogel, F.; Brienen, E.A.; Nang-Beifubah, A.; Ziem, J.; Polderman, A.M. Prevalence of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in northern Ghana. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2003, 8, 1153–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Verweij, J.J.; Schinkel, J.; Laeijendecker, D.; van Rooyen, M.A.; van Lieshout, L.; Polderman, A.M. Real-time PCR for the detection of Giardia lamblia. Mol. Cell Probes 2003, 17, 223–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Read, C.M.; Monis, P.T.; Thompson, R.C. Discrimination of all genotypes of Giardia duodenalis at the glutamate dehydrogenase locus using PCR-RFLP. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2004, 4, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lalle, M.; Pozio, E.; Capelli, G.; Bruschi, F.; Crotti, D.; Cacciò, S.M. Genetic heterogeneity at the beta-giardin locus among human and animal isolates of Giardia duodenalis and identification of potentially zoonotic subgenotypes. Int. J. Parasitol. 2005, 35, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sulaiman, I.M.; Fayer, R.; Bern, C.; Gilman, R.H.; Trout, J.M.; Schantz, P.M.; Das, P.; Lal, A.A.; Xiao, L. Triosephosphate isomerase gene characterization and potential zoonotic transmission of Giardia duodenalis. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2003, 9, 1444–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Panel of laboratory-confirmed DNA samples used in the diagnostic evaluation of the singleplex and duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Table 1. Panel of laboratory-confirmed DNA samples used in the diagnostic evaluation of the singleplex and duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
PhylumGenusSpeciesNo. DNA Isolates
ApicomplexaCryptosporidiumC. hominis73
C. parvum17
C. canis1
C. felis2
C. ryanae1
C. scrofarum2
BabesiaB. divergens1
BesnoitiaB. besnoiti2
CystoisosporaC. belli1
NeosporaN. caninum1
PlasmodiumP. falciparum1
P. malariae1
P. ovale1
P. vivax1
SarcocystisS. arctica1
S. cruzi1
S. gigantea1
ToxoplasmaT. gondii2
AmoebozoaEntamoebaE. histolytica25
E. dispar11
EuglenozoaLeishmaniaL. aethiopica1
L. amazonensis1
L. braziliensis1
L. donovani1
L. infantum1
L. major1
L. mexicana1
L. tropica1
HeterokontaBlastocystisBlastocystis sp.42
MetamonadaGiardiaG. duodenalis115
DientamoebaD. fragilis37
MicrosporidiaEnterocytozoonE. bieneusi4
NematodaAnisakisA. simplex1
DirofilariaD. repens1
LoaL. loa1
MansonellaM. perstans1
OncocercaO. volvulus1
TrichurisT. muris1
Total 358
Table 2. Main features of the CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Table 2. Main features of the CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Format and AssayProtist SpeciesTargeted GeneFluorophoreBatch
Singleplex qPCR
VIASURE CryptosporidiumCryptosporidium spp.ssu rRNAFAMKRYXH-007
VIASURE D. fragilisDientamoeba fragilisssu rRNAFAMDIEXH-007
VIASURE E. disparEntamoeba disparssu rRNAFAMETDXH-009
VIASURE E. histolyticaEntamoeba histolyticassu rRNAFAMETHXH-010
VIASURE GiardiaGiardia duodenalisssu rRNAFAMGIAXH-008
Duplex qPCR
VIASURE Blastocystis and D. fragilisBlastocystis sp.ssu rRNAROXBLDXH-010
Dientamoeba fragilisssu rRNAFAM
FAM, 6-carboxyfluorescein; ROX, 6-carboxy-X-rhodamine; ssu rRNA, small subunit ribosomal RNA.
Table 3. Direct comparison of the CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits to reference PCR methods used during routine analyses in the initial diagnosis.
Table 3. Direct comparison of the CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits to reference PCR methods used during routine analyses in the initial diagnosis.
Format and AssayProtist Species(+/+)(+/−)(−/+)(−/−)Kappa Test
Singleplex qPCR
VIASURE CryptosporidiumCryptosporidium spp.91052620.964
VIASURE D. fragilisDientamoeba fragilis37103200.985
VIASURE E. disparEntamoeba dispar11003471
VIASURE E. histolyticaEntamoeba histolytica24013330.978
VIASURE GiardiaGiardia duodenalis112042420.974
Duplex qPCR
VIASURE Blastocystis and D. fragilisBlastocystis sp.42403120.948
Dientamoeba fragilis37103200.985
+, Positive result; −, Negative result.
Table 4. Diagnostic performance of the VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits when applied to PCR-confirmed samples during routine analyses in initial diagnosis.
Table 4. Diagnostic performance of the VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits when applied to PCR-confirmed samples during routine analyses in initial diagnosis.
Format and AssayOverall AgreementTPTNFPFNSensitivitySpecificityPositive Predictive ValueNegative Predictive Value
Singleplex qPCR
Cryptosporidium0.98691262050.94 (0.88–0.98)1 (0.98–1)1 (0.96–1)0.98 (0.95–0.99)
D. fragilis0.986112242040.96 (0.91–0.99)0.99 (0.97–1)0.99 (0.95–1)0.98 (0.95–0.99)
E. dispar0.9924333010.96 (0.79–0.99)1 (0.98–1)1 (0.85–1)0.99 (0.98–1)
E. histolytica1.0011347001 (0.71–1)1 (0.98–1)1 (0.71–1)1 (0.98–1)
Giardia0.98537320101 (0.91–1)0.99 (0.98–1)0.97 (0.86–0.99)1 (0.98–1)
Duplex qPCR
Blastocystis and D. fragilis0.93542312401 (0.91–1)0.98 (0.96–0.99)0.89 (0.76–0.96)1 (0.98–1)
0.98537320101 (0.9–1)0.99 (0.98–1)0.97 (0.86–0.99)1 (0.98–1)
TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; FN: false negative.
Table 5. Intra-assay repeatability of the multiplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Table 5. Intra-assay repeatability of the multiplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Format and PathogenSampleMean CTStandard Deviation (σ)Coefficient of Variation (CV%)
Cryptosporidium spp. 1131.880.310.98
231.980.521.63
331.320.431.36
431.860.581.81
531.340.391.25
Entamoeba histolytica 1129.100.100.34
228.780.260.90
3NegativeN/AN/A
431.360.210.66
528.220.190.68
Giardia duodenalis 1133.660.320.95
237.201.273.42
334.180.651.91
437.801.233.27
536.20N/AN/A
Blastocystis sp. 2127.761.003.61
230.040.712.36
331.040.983.16
433.560.260.78
530.980.782.50
Dientamoeba fragilis 2122.420.592.63
221.760.190.90
320.420.482.36
423.580.361.51
520.740.783.78
1 CerTest VIASURE Cryptosporidium, Giardia, & E. histolytica Real-Time PCR detection kit. 2 CerTest VIASURE Blastocystis sp. & D. fragilis Real-Time PCR detection kit. N/A, Not applicable because of insufficient or negative replicate values.
Table 6. Inter-assay reproducibility of the multiplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Table 6. Inter-assay reproducibility of the multiplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR detection kits.
Format and PathogenSampleMean CTStandard Deviation (σ)Coefficient of Variation (CV%)
Cryptosporidium spp. 1131.480.521.66
231.660.511.62
331.120.331.08
431.320.862.75
531.300.601.90
Entamoeba histolytica 1128.900.240.85
228.660.592.04
3NegativeN/AN/A
430.980.290.95
527.740.301.07
Giardia duodenalis 1133.580.631.86
237.000.621.67
334.281.313.83
435.900.401.11
536.500.421.16
Blastocystis sp. 2126.640.180.68
228.680.461.61
330.201.234.07
432.621.364.18
530.081.414.70
Dientamoeba fragilis 2121.440.331.53
220.880.562.70
319.280.361.85
423.280.381.62
519.981.165.79
1 CerTest VIASURE Cryptosporidium, Giardia, & E. histolytica Real-Time PCR Detection Kit. 2 CerTest VIASURE Blastocystis sp. & D. fragilis Real-Time PCR Detection Kit. N/A, Not applicable because insufficient or negative replicate values.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dashti, A.; Alonso, H.; Escolar-Miñana, C.; Köster, P.C.; Bailo, B.; Carmena, D.; González-Barrio, D. Evaluation of the Use of Singleplex and Duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays to Detect Common Intestinal Protist Parasites. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14030319

AMA Style

Dashti A, Alonso H, Escolar-Miñana C, Köster PC, Bailo B, Carmena D, González-Barrio D. Evaluation of the Use of Singleplex and Duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays to Detect Common Intestinal Protist Parasites. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(3):319. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14030319

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dashti, Alejandro, Henar Alonso, Cristina Escolar-Miñana, Pamela C. Köster, Begoña Bailo, David Carmena, and David González-Barrio. 2024. "Evaluation of the Use of Singleplex and Duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays to Detect Common Intestinal Protist Parasites" Diagnostics 14, no. 3: 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14030319

APA Style

Dashti, A., Alonso, H., Escolar-Miñana, C., Köster, P. C., Bailo, B., Carmena, D., & González-Barrio, D. (2024). Evaluation of the Use of Singleplex and Duplex CerTest VIASURE Real-Time PCR Assays to Detect Common Intestinal Protist Parasites. Diagnostics, 14(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14030319

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop