scholarly journals Genotyping of 27 Human Papillomavirus Types by Using L1 Consensus PCR Products by a Single-Hybridization, Reverse Line Blot Detection Method

1998 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 3020-3027 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. E. Gravitt ◽  
C. L. Peyton ◽  
R. J. Apple ◽  
C. M. Wheeler

Amplification of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA by L1 consensus primer systems (e.g., MY09/11 or GP5+/6+) can detect as few as 10 to 100 molecules of HPV targets from a genital sample. However, genotype determination by dot blot hybridization is laborious and requires at least 27 separate hybridizations for substantive HPV-type discrimination. A reverse blot method was developed which employs a biotin-labeled PCR product hybridized to an array of immobilized oligonucleotide probes. By the reverse blot strip analysis, genotype discrimination of multiple HPV types can be accomplished in a single hybridization and wash cycle. Twenty-seven HPV probe mixes, two control probe concentrations, and a single reference line were immobilized to 75- by 6-mm nylon strips. Each individual probe line contained a mixture of two bovine serum albumin-conjugated oligonucleotide probes specific to a unique HPV genotype. The genotype spectrum discriminated on this strip includes the high-risk, or cancer-associated, HPV genotypes 16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 68 (ME180), MM4 (W13B), MM7 (P291), and MM9 (P238A) and the low-risk, or non-cancer-associated, genotypes 6, 11, 40, 42, 53, 54, 57, 66, and MM8 (P155). In addition, two concentrations of β-globin probes allowed for assessment of individual specimen adequacy following amplification. We have evaluated the performance of the strip method relative to that of a previously reported dot blot format (H. M. Bauer et al., p. 132–152, in C. S. Herrington and J. O. D. McGee (ed.), Diagnostic Molecular Pathology: a Practical Approach, (1992), by testing 328 cervical swab samples collected in Digene specimen transport medium (Digene Diagnostics, Silver Spring, Md.). We show excellent agreement between the two detection formats, with 92% concordance for HPV positivity (kappa = 0.78, P < 0.001). Nearly all of the discrepant HPV-positive samples resulted from weak signals and can be attributed to sampling error from specimens with low concentrations (<1 copy/μl) of HPV DNA. The primary advantage of the strip-based detection system is the ability to rapidly genotype HPVs present in genital samples with high sensitivity and specificity, minimizing the likelihood of misclassification.

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apostolos Zaravinos ◽  
Ioannis N. Mammas ◽  
George Sourvinos ◽  
Demetrios A. Spandidos

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can identify women at risk of cervical cancer. Currently, molecular detection methods are the gold standard for identification of HPV. The three categories of molecular assays that are available are based on the detection of HPV DNA and include (1) non-amplified hybridization assays, such as Southern transfer hybridization (STH), dot blot hybridization (DB) and in situ hybridization (ISH); (2) signal amplified hybridization assays, such as hybrid capture assays (HC2); (3) target amplification assays, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and in situ PCR. STH requires large amounts of DNA, is laborious and not reproducible, while ISH has only moderate sensitivity for HPV. The sensitivity of the HC2 assay is similar to that of PCR-based assays, with high sensitivity being achieved by signal rather than target amplification. PCR-based detection is both highly sensitive and specific. Since PCR can be performed on very small amounts of DNA, it is ideal for use on specimens with low DNA content. In the future, with the advance of technology, viral DNA extraction and amplification systems will become more rapid, more sensitive, and more automated.


1992 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 392-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. KNOBLER ◽  
S. SCHNEIDER ◽  
B. RADLWIMMER ◽  
W. BODEMER ◽  
W. GEBHART ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 214-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. Distéfano ◽  
M. A. Picconi ◽  
L. V. Alonio ◽  
D. Dalbert ◽  
J. Mural ◽  
...  

Objective:The aim of this study was to identify human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions and to evaluate the persistence of viral DNA after diathermic large loop excision (DLLE) treatment.Study Design:Biopsies from 36 patients with low- and high-grade CIN lesions were studied before and after DLLE treatment looking for HPV sequences. DNA was extracted to perform a radioactive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using GP 5,6 generic primers. PCR products were analyzed by the single-stranded conformational polymorphism (SSCP) which is a simultaneous detection and typing method. Dot-blot hybridization with generic and type-specific biotinylated oligonucleotide probes was applied in some cases.Results:HPV DNA was found in all pretreatment samples, and the viral type was identified in 80% of them, HPV 16 being the most prevalent. The viral type coincided with that detected in the first biopsy in all except one case. Seventy five percent of the patients (27 cases) were negative for CIN at follow up, but 50% of them remained HPV DNA positive.Conclusion:DLLE treatment was effective in removing the CIN lesion but not the HPV. This fact points out the need to asses the presence of HPV in DNA during the follow-up, since viral persistence has been considered a high risk factor for recurrence and/or malignant transformation.


1993 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
A J Borg ◽  
G Medley ◽  
S M Garland

A total of 377 women, consecutively selected as first attenders to a sexually transmitted diseases clinic in Melbourne, Australia, were examined for overt Condylomata acuminata and were screened for genital HPV DNA types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33 and (35) using 2 dot blot hybridization methods. Overall, there was a 90% positivity correlation between the 2 methods with HPV DNA being detected in 12% of ectocervical samples. Overt warts were found in 15% of the women and HPV DNA was detected at the cervix in 35% with cytology predicting HPV with or without dysplasia in 27%. Thirteen percent had a past history of warts but none on examination and HPV DNA was evident in 16% while 18% had cytological features of HPV. Those with no warts evident and no past history of warts had both HPV DNA and cytological features of HPV in 7%.


1991 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
MÁire A. Duggan ◽  
Valerie F. Boras ◽  
Masafumi Inoue ◽  
S. Elizabeth McGregor

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 560-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie E Palmisano ◽  
Ann M Gaffga ◽  
Jennifer Daigle ◽  
Joeli Brinkman ◽  
Kristina Mire ◽  
...  

The primary risk factor for cervical cancer is infection with high-risk genotypes of human papillomavirus (HPV). This study compared HPV DNA detection between cervical swabs (CX) and self-administered vaginal swabs (SV). Phase I participants were 199 women chosen from a study comparing the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis from various anogenital sites. Phase II participants were 135 women from either the Colposcopy or HIV Outpatient Clinic. HPV DNA testing was performed using polymerase chain reaction and Roche reverse line blot hybridization. In Phase I samples, more CX samples amplified and more HPV genotypes ( P < 0.05) were detected in CX. Genotype 52 were seen more in the cervix, whereas genotype 82 (MM4) was detected solely in the vagina. The presence of high-risk HPV genotypes in the cervix was a predictor of an abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear. In Phase II samples, CX samples amplified more, but similar rates of HPV genotypes were seen in SV and CX samples. Higher concordance rates of high-risk genotypes were seen in Phase II compared to Phase I samples. Phase II demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing SV sampling to reflect cervical status. If validated, a self-vaginal swab method to detect cervical HPV DNA status could be utilized to triage women with indeterminate Pap smears and be a useful method to collect epidemiological data from large populations.


1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. M. Knobler ◽  
S. Schneider ◽  
R. A. Neumann ◽  
W. Bodemer ◽  
B. Radlwimmer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document