Open AccessEvaluation of the NanoCHIP® Gastrointestinal Panel (GIP) Test for Simultaneous Detection of Parasitic and Bacterial Enteric Pathogens in Fecal Specimens
Author(s) -
Shifra Ken Dror,
Elsa Pavlotzky,
Manouchehr Barak
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0159440
Subject(s) - blastocystis , entamoeba histolytica , salmonella , turnaround time , shigella , microbiology and biotechnology , campylobacter , biology , medical microbiology , cryptosporidium , feces , bacteria , computer science , genetics , operating system
Infectious gastroenteritis is a global health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial to allow appropriate and timely treatment. Current laboratory stool testing has a long turnaround time (TAT) and demands highly qualified personnel and multiple techniques. The need for high throughput and the number of possible enteric pathogens compels the implementation of a molecular approach which uses multiplex technology, without compromising performance requirements. In this work we evaluated the feasibility of the NanoCHIP ® Gastrointestinal Panel (GIP) (Savyon Diagnostics, Ashdod, IL), a molecular microarray-based screening test, to be used in the routine workflow of our laboratory, a big outpatient microbiology laboratory. The NanoCHIP ® GIP test provides simultaneous detection of nine major enteric bacteria and parasites: Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Giardia sp., Cryptosporidium spp., Entamoeba histolytica , Entamoeba dispar , Dientamoeba fragilis , and Blastocystis spp. The required high-throughput was obtained by the NanoCHIP ® detection system together with the MagNA Pure 96 DNA purification system (Roche Diagnostics Ltd., Switzerland). This combined system has demonstrated a higher sensitivity and detection yield compared to the conventional methods in both, retrospective and prospective samples. The identification of multiple parasites and bacteria in a single test also enabled increased efficiency of detecting mixed infections, as well as reduced hands-on time and work load. In conclusion, the combination of these two automated systems is a proper response to the laboratory needs in terms of improving laboratory workflow, turn-around-time, minimizing human errors and can be efficiently integrated in the routine work of the laboratory.