Abstract
In this report, we describe the first national scale multi-laboratory evaluation of commercial quantitative PCR kits for detection of Monkeypox virus (MPXV) DNA. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two kits by different diagnostic laboratories across Israel. A panel of 10 standardized samples was tested simultaneously using the Novaplex (15 laboratories) and Bio-Speedy (seven laboratories) kits. An in-house assay based on previously published tests was used as reference. Comparison of the results showed high intra-assay consistency between laboratories, with small variations for most samples.
The sensitivity of the two kits was similar to that of the in-house assay, with an analytical detection limit of less than ten copies per reaction. Significant differences were observed, however, in the Cq values and relative fluorescence (RF), between the assays. The RF signal of the in-house and Bio-Speedy assay ranged between 5,000 and 10,000 RFU, while the signal in the Novaplex assay was less than 600 RFU. Due to the kit measurement protocol, the Cq values of the Bio-Speedy kit were 5-7.5 cycles lower than those of the In-house assay. On the contrary, the Cq values of the Novaplex kit were significantly higher than those of the in-house assay, with differences of 3-5 cycles per sample.
Our results suggest that while all assays were similar in their overall sensitivity, direct comparison of Cq values between them may be misleading. Additionally, the low fluorescence obtained with the Novaplex kit may be problematic with marginal or “noisy” samples. Diagnostic laboratories should therefore consider all these aspects when choosing a specific MPX detection assay.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the Sheba Medical Center (SHEBA ethical board)gave ethical approval for this work. the approval protocol number is 9481-22-SMC.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
