Comparison of performance of three commercial platforms for warfarin sensitivity genotyping

被引:9
作者
Babic, Nikolina [1 ]
Haverfield, Eden V. [2 ]
Burrus, Julie A. [1 ]
Lozada, Anthony [2 ]
Das, Soma [2 ]
Yeo, Kiang-Teck J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Pritzker Sch Med, Dept Pathol, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
[2] Univ Chicago, Pritzker Sch Med, Dept Human Genet, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
关键词
Warfarin; Genotyping; Pharmacogenetics; Cytochrome P-450; CYP2C9; VKORC1; ANTICOAGULANT RESPONSE; ATRIAL-FIBRILLATION; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; CYP2C9; GENOTYPE; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.cca.2009.06.015
中图分类号
R446 [实验室诊断]; R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: We performed a 3-way comparison on the Osmetech eSensor(R), AutoGenomics INFINITI(TM), and a real-time PCR method (ParagonDx(TM) reagents/Stratagene(R) RT-PCR platform) for their FDA-cleared warfarin panels, and additional polymorphisms (CYP2C9 *5, *6, and *11 and extended VKORC1 panels) where available. Methods: One hundred de-identified DNA samples were used in this IRB-approved study. Accuracy was determined by comparison of genotyping results across three platforms. Any discrepancy was resolved by bidirectional sequencing. The CYP4F2 on Osmetech was validated by bi-directional sequencing. Results: Accuracies for CYP2C9 *2 and *3 were 100% for all 3 platforms. VKORC1 3673 genotyping accuracies were 100% on eSensor and 97% on Infiniti. CYP2C9 *5, *6 and *11 showed 100% concordance between eSensor and Infiniti. VKORC1 6484 and 9041 variants compared between ParagonDx and Infiniti analyzer were 100% (6484) and 99% (9041) concordant. CYP4F2 was 100% concordant with sequencing results. The time required to generate the results from automated DNA extraction-to-result was approximately 8 h on Infiniti, and 4 h on eSensor and ParagonDx, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, we observed excellent CYP2C9 *2 and *3 genotyping accuracy for all three platforms. For VKORC1 3673 genotyping, eSensor demonstrated a slightly higher accuracy than the Infiniti, and CYP4F2 on Osmetech was 100% accurate. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:143 / 147
页数:5
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [21] Comparison of three methods for genotyping the UGT1A1 (TA)n repeat polymorphism
    Baudhuin, Linnea M.
    Highsmith, W. Edward
    Skierka, Jennifer
    Holtegaard, Leonard
    Moore, Brenda E.
    O'Kane, Dennis J.
    [J]. CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY, 2007, 40 (9-10) : 710 - 717
  • [22] Comparison of three HCV genotyping assays:: a serological method as a reliable and inexpensive alternative to PCR based assays
    Schröter, M
    Zöllner, B
    Schäfer, P
    Laufs, R
    Feucht, HH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2001, 23 (1-2) : 57 - 63
  • [23] Sensitivity of turtles to anticoagulant rodenticides: Risk assessment for green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Ogasawara Islands and comparison of warfarin sensitivity among turtle species
    Yamamura, Yoshiya
    Takeda, Kazuki
    Kawai, Yusuke K.
    Ikenaka, Yoshinori
    Kitayama, Chiyo
    Kondo, Satomi
    Kezuka, Chiho
    Taniguchi, Mari
    Ishizuka, Mayumi
    Nakayama, Shouta M. M.
    [J]. AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY, 2021, 233
  • [24] Comparison of diagnostic performance among Abbott RealTime HCV Genotyping II, Abbott HCV Genotype plus RUO, and Roche Cobas HCV Genotyping assays for hepatitis C virus genotyping
    Chang, Yu-Ping
    Huang, Chiuan-Bo
    Su, Tung-Hung
    Liu, Chun-Jen
    Tseng, Tai-Chung
    Huang, Shang-Chin
    Chen, Pei-Jer
    Kao, Jia-Horng
    Liu, Chen-Hua
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, 2024, 96 (05)
  • [25] Genotyping Performance between Saliva and Blood-Derived Genomic DNAs on the DMET Array: A Comparison
    Hu, Yueshan
    Ehli, Erik A.
    Nelson, Kelly
    Bohlen, Krista
    Lynch, Christophina
    Huizenga, Patty
    Kittlelsrud, Julie
    Soundy, Timothy J.
    Davies, Gareth E.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (03):
  • [26] Comparison of MLC error sensitivity of various commercial devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance
    Saito, Masahide
    Sano, Naoki
    Shibata, Yuki
    Kuriyama, Kengo
    Komiyama, Takafumi
    Marino, Kan
    Aoki, Shinichi
    Ashizawa, Kazunari
    Yoshizawa, Kazuya
    Onishi, Hiroshi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 19 (03): : 87 - 93
  • [27] Comparison of the clinical performance of OmniPlex-HPV and GeneFinder HPV for the detection and genotyping of human papillomaviruses in cervical specimens
    Hong, GeeHay
    Park, Yun Guk
    Jin, Han Wool
    Choi, Sam Kyu
    Chi, Hyun Young
    Cho, Woo Jae
    Lee, Joo Hee
    Han, Sol
    Hong, Sun Pyo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2018, 67 (09) : 1279 - 1286
  • [28] Dosing algorithm for warfarin using CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotyping from a multi-ethnic population:: comparison with other equations
    Wu, Alan H. B.
    Wang, Ping
    Smith, Andrew
    Haller, Christine
    Drake, Katherine
    Linder, Mark
    Valdes, Roland, Jr.
    [J]. PHARMACOGENOMICS, 2008, 9 (02) : 169 - 178
  • [29] Comparison of three different HCV genotyping methods: Core, NS5B sequence analysis and line probe assay
    Cai, Qingxian
    Zhao, Zhixin
    Liu, Ying
    Shao, Xiaoqiong
    Gao, Zhiliang
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE, 2013, 31 (02) : 347 - 352
  • [30] The clinical performance of human papillomavirus genotyping using PANArray HPV chip: Comparison to ThinPrep cytology alone and co-testing
    Kim, Jiyoung
    Jun, Sun-Young
    Maeng, Lee-So
    [J]. PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2020, 216 (09)