Genome Biology

official impact factor 6.89

Open Access Method

Optimization and clinical validation of a pathogen detection microarray

Christopher W Wong1*, Charlie LW Heng2, Leong Wan Yee1, Shirlena WL Soh3, Cissy B Kartasasmita4, Eric AF Simoes5, Martin L Hibberd3, Wing-Kin Sung2 and Lance D Miller1

Author Affiliations

1 Genomic Technologies, Genome Institute of Singapore, Republic of Singapore

2 Computational and Mathematical Biology, Genome Institute of Singapore, Republic of Singapore

3 Infectious Diseases, Genome Institute of Singapore, Republic of Singapore

4 Hasan Sadikin Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia

5 Section of Infectious Diseases, The University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center and The Children's Hospital, Denver, CO 80262, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Genome Biology 2007, 8:R93 doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-5-r93

Published: 28 May 2007

Additional files

Additional data file 1:

All files are available for download in PDF, JPG, GIF, TIFF, HTML or ZIP formats as indicated on the webpage [25]. Supplementary methods: sample amplification and microarray protocols (PDF); RT-PCR modeling and amplification efficiency score (AES); pathogen detection algorithm (PDA). Supplementary figures. Figure S1: Probe design schema. Probes (40-mers) were tiled at an average 8-base resolution across each of the 35 viral genomes in the manner depicted above. Numbers represent the start and end positions of each probe. Figure S2: Choice of primer tag in random RT-PCR has significant effect on PCR efficiency. Heatmap of probe signal intensities for a clinical hMPV sample following random RT-PCR using original primer (a) A1 or (b) AES-optimized primer A2. Figure S3: Comparison of amplification efficiency of original primer A1 and AES-optimized primer A2. RNA from patients infected with RSV B (n = 5) or hMPV (n = 3) were reverse-transcribed and amplified using primer A1 or A2 and the percentage of r-signature probes with signal above detection threshold was determined. Figure S4: Diagnostic PCR results for RSV patient 412 show that the patient does not have a coronavirus infection. (a) PCR using pancoronavirus primers. Lane 1, 1 kb ladder; lane 2, blank; lane 3, OC43 coronavirus positive control; lane 4, 229E coronavirus positive control; lane 5, RSV patient 412; lane 6, PCR primers and reagents only, as a negative control. (b) PCR using OC43 specific primers. Lane 1, 50 bp ladder; lane 2, blank; lane 3, OC43 coronavirus positive control; lane 4, RSV patient 412; lane 5, purified RSV from ATCC; lane 6, PCR negative control. (c) PCR using 229E specific primers. Lane 1, 229E coronavirus positive control; lane 2, RSV patient 412; lane 3, PCR negative control; lane 4, 1 kb ladder. Supplementary tables. Table S1: List of genomes represented on the pathogen detection microarray. Table S2: Comparison of E-Predict and PDA algorithms. Pathogen microarray data: data have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus and are accessible through GEO accession number GSE3779 [45]. Software downloads. Amplification efficiency score software: Primerselect Readme.txt; Primerselect.java. Pathogen detection algorithm (PDA): WKL Readme.txt; WKL.cpp.

Format: ZIP Size: 1.1MB Download file

Open Data