Register      Login
Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > SH > SH07050
REVIEW
Contents Vol 5(1)

Exploring ‘best practice’ for nucleic acid detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae

David M. Whiley A B , Suzanne M. Garland C D , Geoffrey Harnett E , Gary Lum F , David W. Smith E , Sepehr N. Tabrizi C D , Theo P. Sloots A B and John W. Tapsall G H
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Sir Albert Sakzewski Virus Research Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital and Health Service District, Brisbane, Qld 4029, Australia.

B Clinical Medical Virology Centre, University of Queensland, Qld 4029, Australia.

C Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, The Royal Womens’ Hospital, Melbourne, Vic. 3053, Australia.

D Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Vic. 3053, Australia.

E Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, PathWest Laboratory Medicine Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia.

F Microbiology Laboratory, Pathology Department, Royal Darwin Hospital, Casuarina, NT 0810, Australia.

G WHO Collaborating Centre for STD and HIV, Microbiology Department, The Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia.

H Corresponding author. Email: j.tapsall@unsw.edu.au

Sexual Health 5(1) 17-23 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH07050
Submitted: 6 July 2007  Accepted: 12 December 2007   Published: 22 February 2008

Abstract

Nucleic acid detection tests (NADT) have considerable benefits for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC), including high sensitivity across a range of specimen types and use under widely differing settings and conditions. However, sexual health practitioners and others who use data generated by NADT for GC should be aware of some important limitations of these tests. False-positive results caused by cross reaction with commensal Neisseria species have been observed in many assays, and have lead to unacceptably low positive-predictive values in some patient populations. Further, false-negative results can be caused by GC sequence variation, with some gonococci lacking certain NADT target sequences. This review examines the issues associated with gonococcal NADT and considers best practice for use of these assays based on current knowledge. We emphasise the need for supplementary testing and extensive assay validation, and suggest appropriate strategies for these requirements irrespective of the setting in which they are used. Further, we highlight the need to maintain culture-based testing for certain specimen sites as well as for antimicrobial resistance surveillance.


References


[1] Tapsall J,  Whiley D,  Sloots T. Applications of molecular testing in clinical laboratories for the diagnosis and control of gonorrhea. Future Microbiol 2006; 1 317–24.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [verified 20 February 2008].

[6] Unemo M,  Palmer HM,  Blackmore T,  Herrara G,  Fredlund H,  Limnios A, et al. Global transmission of prolyl-iminipeptidase negative Neisseria gonorrhoeae – implications for changes in diagnostic strategies. Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83 47–51.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[7] Johnson RE,  Newhall WJ,  Papp JR,  Knapp JS,  Black CM,  Gift TL, et al. Screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections – 2002. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 18 1–38.


[8] National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council. Laboratory accreditation standards and guidelines for nucleic acid detection and analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing; 2006.

[9] Ison CGC. NAATs: is the time right? Sex Transm Infect 2006; 82 515.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[10] Farrell DJ. Evaluation of AMPLICOR Neisseria gonorrhoeae PCR using cppB nested PCR and 16S rRNA PCR. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37 386–90.
| PubMed |

[11] Gibbs CP,  Meyer TF. Genome plasticity in Neisseria gonorrhoeae. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996; 145 173–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[12] Linz B,  Schenker M,  Zhu P,  Achtman M. Frequent interspecific genetic exchange between commensal Neisseriae and Neisseria meningitidis. Mol Microbiol 2000; 36 1049–58.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[13] Palmer HM,  Mallinson H,  Wood RL,  Herring AJ. Evaluation of the specificities of five DNA amplification methods for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41 835–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[14] Peter-Getzlaff S,  Luethy J,  Springer B. Diagnostic value of molecular confirmation assays for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45 3856–8.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[15] Hammerschlag MR. Use of nucleic acid amplification tests in investigating child sexual abuse. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77 153–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[16] Whiley DM,  LeCornec GM,  Mackay IM,  Siebert DJ,  Sloots TP. A real-time PCR assay for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae by LightCycler. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2002; 42 85–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[17] Tabrizi SN,  Chen S,  Cohenford MA,  Lentrichia BB,  Coffman E,  Shultz T, et al. Evaluation of real time polymerase chain reaction assays for confirmation of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in clinical samples tested positive in the Roche Cobas Amplicor assay. Sex Transm Infect 2004; 80 68–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[18] Tabrizi SN,  Chen S,  Tapsall J,  Garland SM. Evaluation of opa-based real-time PCR for detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32 199–202.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[19] Geraats-Peters CW,  Brouwers M,  Schneeberger PM,  van der Zanden AG,  Bruisten SM,  Weers-Pothoff G, et al. Specific and sensitive detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in clinical specimens by real-time PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43 5653–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[20] Mangold KA,  Regner M,  Tajuddin M,  Tajuddin AM,  Jennings L,  Du H, et al. Neisseria species identification assay for the confirmation of Neisseria gonorrhoeae-positive results of the COBAS Amplicor PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45 1403–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[21] Whiley DM,  Buda PJ,  Bayliss J,  Cover L,  Bates J,  Sloots TP. A new confirmatory Neisseria gonorrhoeae real-time PCR assay targeting the porA pseudogene. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2004; 23 705–10.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[22] Lum G,  Freeman K,  Nguyen NL,  Limnios EA,  Tabrizi SN,  Carter I, et al. A cluster of culture positive gonococcal infections but with false negative cppB gene based PCR. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81 400–2.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[23] Bruisten SM,  Noordhoek GT,  van den Brule AJ,  Duim B,  Boel CH,  El-Faouzi K, et al. Multicenter validation of the cppB gene as a PCR target for detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42 4332–4.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[24] Ripa T,  Nilsson P.. A variant of Chlamydia trachomatis with deletion in cryptic plasmid: implications for use of PCR diagnostic tests. Euro Surveill 2006; 9


[25] Hadgu A. Discrepant analysis is an inappropriate and unscientific method. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38 4301–2.
| PubMed |

[26] Gaydos CA,  Quinn TC,  Willis D,  Weissfeld A,  Hook EW,  Martin DH, et al. Performance of the APTIMA Combo 2 assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in female urine and endocervical swab specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41 304–9.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[27] Martin DH,  Cammarata C,  Van Der Pol B,  Jones RB,  Quinn TC,  Gaydos CA, et al. Multicenter evaluation of AMPLICOR and automated COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG tests for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38 3544–9.
| PubMed |

[28] Moncada J,  Schachter J,  Hook EW,  Ferrero D,  Gaydos C,  Quinn TC, et al. The effect of urine testing in evaluations of the sensitivity of the Gen-Probe Aptima Combo 2 assay on endocervical swabs for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: the infected patient standard reduces sensitivity of single site evaluation. Sex Transm Dis 2004; 31 273–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[29] Tapsall JW,  Limnios EA,  Nguyen NL,  Carter I,  Lum G,  Freeman K, et al. Cryptic-plasmid-free gonococci may contribute to failure of cppB gene-based assays to confirm results of BD ProbeTEC PCR for identification of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43 2036–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[30] World Health Organization. Management of sexually transmitted diseases. WHO/GPA/TEM94.1 Rev 1. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.

[31] Alloba F,  Alawattegama A,  Jones C. Use of nucleic amplification tests for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae: survey of genitourinary medicine clinics in England. Int J STD AIDS 2007; 18 652–3.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |

[32] Tapsall J , Members of the National Neisseria Network of Australia. Antimicrobial testing and applications in the pathogenic Neisseria. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: methods and practices with an Australian perspective. In: J Merlino (ed.). Sydney: Australian Society for Microbiology; 2004. pp. 175–88.

[33] Tapsall JW , Ray S , Limnios EA . Targeted culture for N. gonorrhoeae from FVU increases isolate numbers for gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility monitoring: importance of time to culture and FVU physical characteristics. Abstract WP 010. Abstracts and Proceedings of 16th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for STD Research (ISSTDR); 2005 July 10–13; Amsterdam: ISSTDR.