JCM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Other Versions of this Article:
JCM.00200-08v1
46/7/2216    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Binnicker, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beito, E. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Binnicker, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Beito, E. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2008, p. 2216-2221, Vol. 46, No. 7
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00200-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Two Commercial Systems for Automated Processing, Reading, and Interpretation of Lyme Borreliosis Western Blots{triangledown}

M. J. Binnicker,1* D. J. Jespersen,1 J. A. Harring,1 L. O. Rollins,1 S. C. Bryant,2 and E. M. Beito1

Division of Clinical Microbiology and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology,1 Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 559052

Received 1 February 2008/ Returned for modification 27 March 2008/ Accepted 29 April 2008

The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) is commonly made by serologic testing with Western blot (WB) analysis serving as an important supplemental assay. Although specific, the interpretation of WBs for diagnosis of LB (i.e., Lyme WBs) is subjective, with considerable variability in results. In addition, the processing, reading, and interpretation of Lyme WBs are laborious and time-consuming procedures. With the need for rapid processing and more objective interpretation of Lyme WBs, we evaluated the performances of two automated interpretive systems, TrinBlot/BLOTrix (Trinity Biotech, Carlsbad, CA) and BeeBlot/ViraScan (Viramed Biotech AG, Munich, Germany), using 518 serum specimens submitted to our laboratory for Lyme WB analysis. The results of routine testing with visual interpretation were compared to those obtained by BLOTrix analysis of MarBlot immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG and by ViraScan analysis of ViraBlot and ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays. BLOTrix analysis demonstrated an agreement of 84.7% for IgM and 87.3% for IgG compared to visual reading and interpretation. ViraScan analysis of the ViraBlot assays demonstrated agreements of 85.7% for IgM and 94.2% for IgG, while ViraScan analysis of the ViraStripe IgM and IgG assays showed agreements of 87.1 and 93.1%, respectively. Testing by the automated systems yielded an average time savings of 64 min/run compared to processing, reading, and interpretation by our current procedure. Our findings demonstrated that automated processing and interpretive systems yield results comparable to those of visual interpretation, while reducing the subjectivity and time required for Lyme WB analysis.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW Hilton 860A, Rochester, MN 55905. Phone: (507) 538-1640. Fax: (507) 284-4272. E-mail: binnicker.matthew{at}mayo.edu

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 7 May 2008.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2008, p. 2216-2221, Vol. 46, No. 7
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00200-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.