Beukenlaan 137
5616 VD Eindhoven
The Netherlands
+31 85064 55 82
info@clinlabint.com
PanGlobal Media is not responsible for any error or omission that might occur in the electronic display of product or company data.
A new, benchtop molecular analyser allows renal transplant centres to monitor urine and serum BK viral loads in house, permitting earlier diagnosis and management of BK virus associated nephropathy (BKVAN) in renal transplant recipients.
BK virus infection
Named after the renal transplant patient (with initials B.K.) that it was first isolated from in 1971, BK virus (BKV) is a Polyomavirus, characterized by its nonenveloped, icosahedral capsid and its circular, double-stranded DNA genome. Although BKV is prevalent around the world, estimated to have infected more than 80% of the global population, infection with the virus is usually asymptomatic or associated with only mild respiratory tract symptoms in healthy individuals [1]. Following primary infection, which typically occurs in early childhood, the virus persists in a latent form in the kidneys and urinary tract of its host [2].
Reactivation of BKV can occur in immunocompromised and immunosuppressed individuals [3]. In most cases reactivation of the virus is benign but it can pose a particular challenge for renal transplant patients. In such cases immunosuppression can cause a lytic BKV infection that results in viruria in 30-50% and viremia in 13-22% of renal transplant recipients [4]. BKV infection is one of the most common viral complications to affect renal allografts [5]. It can lead to BKV associated nephropathy (BKVAN) in up to 10% of renal transplant recipients, and is associated with graft failure in 15-80% of affected patients [3,6-9].
Not every latent infection leads to viral reactivation and BKVAN in renal transplant patients. In addition to immunosuppression, other risk factors, such as intragraft inflammation and host-specific immunity have been suggested [3]. The progression of BKVAN may occur without obvious signs or symptoms, other than raised serum creatinine, and so it is often misdiagnosed [9].
Management of BKVAN
Treatment of BKV infection and BKVAN in renal transplant patients usually involves a reduction or modification of immunosuppressive therapy. It is generally agreed that early diagnosis and treatment are extremely important to prevent damage to the allograft [3,9]. At a later stage of infection, when intragraft inflammation has developed, reduction of immunosuppression may not be effective and may even be detrimental to the allograft [3]. For this reason, frequent monitoring of BKV in renal transplant patients, to detect early onset BKV infection, is recommended to ensure timely intervention [3].
Confirmation of BKVAN is performed by histological examination of an allograft biopsy sample. However, clinical intervention is often based on the presence of viral replication as a surrogate marker and early indicator of BKV infection. For this reason, non-invasive urine and blood tests have value in screening for BKV reactivation, monitoring the clinical course of infection, or monitoring response to therapy [3].
Urine cytology has been used to screen for BKV reactivation in renal transplant recipients. However, since the virus may be shed in the urine of healthy individuals, quantitative results are required for this method to have diagnostic value [3]. Furthermore, accurate interpretation of cytology results requires training and expertise as it is often difficult to distinguish BKV from other viral infections [9].
Recently, molecular techniques for the detection and quantification of BKV in blood and urine have become available. Such methods offer greater specificity for BKV and provide a valuable tool for identifying patients at risk of BKVAN before renal function deteriorates.
Monitoring BK viral loads
Quantitative measurements of BK viral load in urine and blood by molecular techniques are useful for monitoring the course of BKV infection [9] and for predicting the development of BKVAN [4,7,10,11]. Viral reactivation can be detected in the urine several weeks before the virus is detected in the blood, and viremia can be detected months before histological evidence of BKVAN is present [3]. Monitoring BKV loads in the urine and serum or plasma of renal transplant recipients, therefore, may be valuable in identifying those at risk of developing BKVAN, allowing further investigation and early intervention if necessary [3,9]. Such measurements are also valuable in monitoring response to therapy [3,9].
Although suggested BKV load thresholds for quantitative molecular measurements vary, and laboratories are encouraged to establish their own cut off values for the purpose of clinical management [9], BK viral loads of greater than 10,000 copies/mL in blood [6,11-14] and greater than 10 million copies/mL in urine are considered predictive for BKVAN [6,11,12].
Current guidelines recommend screening for BKV in the serum or plasma of kidney transplant patients monthly for the first 3-6 months after transplantation, and then every 3 months up to one year post-transplantation [15]. These guidelines also recommend that patients are screened for BKV if there is an unexplained rise in serum creatinine or following treatment for acute rejection [15].
Faster quantification of BKV
Due to the specialist nature of BKV testing and the resources and expertise required to perform BKV measurements by urine cytology or nucleic acid testing, many centres are required to send samples to a reference laboratory for analysis. Some laboratories have adopted in-house polymerase chain reaction (PCR) BKV assays. These can be labour intensive, variable in terms of specificity for BKV, and may require further confirmatory testing on positive samples, which can cause significant delays and can potentially impact patient management.
A new molecular method is now available that can reduce the turnaround time for quantitative BKV results significantly and provide the high specificity required for making important clinical decisions about the management of renal transplant patients. The Diasorin Liaison® Iam benchtop instrument, with its small footprint and ease of operation, offers a cost effective and scalable solution for laboratories servicing renal transplant centres. Demonstrating no cross reactivity with other significant pathogens, including JCV, the Diasorin Iam BKV assay provides reliable, quantitative results on the same day as sample receipt [16].
The Iam BKV assay uses loop-mediated isothermal amplification (Diasorin Q-LAMP) to measure BKV DNA in urine, plasma or serum. Unlike conventional LAMP technology, Diasorin Q-LAMP is a rapid, real-time, fluorescent technique that allows quantitative analysis of individual or multiple targets in a single reaction [16].
Q-LAMP is based on the recognition of multiple primer binding regions on the target nucleic acid and amplification of the target sequence, which is facilitated by polymerase with strand displacement activity. Quantification is achieved through the use of fluorophore-labelled primers and an observed decrease in fluorescence during amplification of the target sequence, together with known calibrators. The Diasorin Iam BKV assay is a duplex Q-LAMP assay, designed to recognize a consensus sequence common to all known BKV subtypes. Integral controls provide verification of the efficiency of the extraction process and demonstrate the absence of inhibitors [16].
The Iam BKV Q-LAMP assay fits easily into daily laboratory routines. Once samples are prepared and loaded onto the Liaison® Iam instrument, no operator intervention is required during an assay run, allowing staff to walk away until the routine is completed and the result is displayed. The Iam BKV assay is extremely sensitive, with a limit of detection (defined as that concentration of BK virus with a 95% probability of detection by probit analysis) of 450 cps/mL in plasma (95% Confidence Interval 350 – 770 cps/mL) and 540 cps/mL in urine (95% CI 440 – 780 cps/mL) [16]. The BKV primers used represent all known BKV subtypes (Ia, Ib-1, IB-2, Ic, II,III and IV) and show no significant homology with a range of pathogens, including SV-40 virus and Herpes viruses, or cross reactivity with the closely-related Polyomavirus, JCV [16].
Improved management of renal transplant patients
The DiaSorin Iam BKV assay for the detection and quantification of BKV has been in use at the 975-bed Westmead Hospital in Sydney since July, 2013. Westmead Hospital is a major teaching hospital for Sydney University and one of Australia’s largest centres for post-graduate training to specialist level in all fields. The Department of Renal Medicine and Transplantation and the Centre for Transplant and Renal Research work closely with the Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology (CIDM), which is part of Pathology West, a leading public pathology service in New South Wales. The focus of the Transplant and Renal Research Group is to improve the lives of people with end-organ failure through transplantation. It also aims to reduce the number of people requiring dialysis by preventing the progression of chronic renal disease.
Senior Hospital Scientist at the Westmead CIDM laboratory, Dr Neisha Jeoffreys, comments, “BKV is an important pathogen in renal transplant patients. It can cause serious complications and so early detection of viral reactivation and accurate monitoring of viral loads is a vital aspect of patient management.”
The Westmead CIDM laboratory provides a BKV testing service to the hospital’s renal transplant outpatient clinics as well as other specialist clinics associated with the centre. They also test samples from other pathology groups in their reference capacity. Dr Jeoffreys explains, “Renal transplant patients are tested routinely using the Iam BKV assay at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post transplantation. Patients that test positive for BKV are tested more frequently, every 2-4 weeks.”
“”The role of the quantitative Iam BKV assay is to determine if the patient is likely to develop BKVAN, which may lead to premature graft loss. Patients with high BKV levels will have their immunosuppression regime modified in order to reduce BKV levels while preventing graft rejection. Ongoing monitoring of BK viral load then assists the renal physicians to ensure the right amount of immunosuppression is delivered to reduce the risk of BKVAN and maintain a healthy graft. Quantitative results allow the physicians to determine the appropriate point at which to modify the treatment.”
Previously, the laboratory used a qualitative in-house conventional PCR method for the detection of BKV followed by monthly quantification of viral loads in BKV-positive patients using a commercially available real-time PCR assay.
“We feel that the Iam BKV assay enables us to provide a better service for our renal specialists,” Dr Jeoffreys continues. “We like the scalability of the Liaison® Iam instrument. We have 3 instruments, which provide the flexibility to perform 1 or up to 21 samples at the same time, optimizing reagent usage. This has allowed us to provide faster turnaround of results as we can now perform quantitative assays immediately and several times a week. The Liaison® Iam method has also helped to improve workflows as it is fast and easy to perform, with less hands-on time than our previous methods, which makes it more cost effective.”
“It is hoped that the rapid quantitative results provided by the Iam BKV assay will allow our renal physicians to respond more quickly to high or escalating BK viral loads,” Dr Jeoffreys concludes. “This will ultimately reduce the rate of graft loss due to BKVAN and allow for better patient management with reduced immunosuppression.”
The Iam BKV assay was the first assay to become available on the Diasorin Liaison® Iam instrument. The growing portfolio of tests available on this platform includes assays for Varicella zoster virus, Parvovirus B19 and Toxoplasma gondii.
Dr Neisha Jeoffreys is Senior Hospital Scientist at the Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology (CIDM) based at Westmead Hospital, part of the Pathology West Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research (ICPMR).
For further information, please contact Tiffany Page, Global Marketing Manager, Molecular Infectious Disease, DiaSorin, tiffany.page@ie.diasorin.com
www.diasorin.com.
References
1. Goudsmit, J. et al. J. Med. Virol. 10, 91–99 (1982).
2. Shinohara T, Matsuda M, Cheng SH, et al. J Med Virol. 1993;41:301-305.
3. Babel, N, Volk, H and Reinke, P (2011). Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 7: 399–406
4. Hirsch, H. H. et al. J. Med. 347, 488–496 (2002).
5. Ramos, E., Drachenberg, C. B., Wali, R. & Hirsch, H. H. Transplantation 87, 621–630 (2009).
6. Hirsch, H. H. et al. Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in renal transplantation: interdisciplinary analyses and recommendations. Transplantation 79, 1277–1286 (2005).
7. Brennan, D. C. et al. Am. J. Transplant. 5, 582–594 (2005).
8. Hirsch HH. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:354-360.
9. Bechert, CJ, Schnadig, VJ, Payne, DA and Dong, J. (2010) Monitoring of BK Viral Load in Renal Allograft Recipients by Real-Time PCR Assays. Am J Clin Pathol 133:242-250.
10. Babel, N. et al. Transplantation 88, 89–95 (2009).
11. Dadhania, D. et al. Transplantation 86, 521–528 (2008).
12. Costa, C. et al. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 23, 3333–3336 (2008).
13. Hirsch HH, Steiger J. Polyomavirus BK. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003;3:611-623.
14. Ding R, Medeiros M, Dadhania D, et al. Transplantation. 2002;74:987-994.
15. KDIGO, Am. J. Transplant. 9 (Suppl. 3), S44–S58 (2009).
16. Diasorin Iam BKV assay Instructions for Use, BKV-524-02,EN 12/12.
Many potential cancer biomarkers have been identified, however, the transfer of these biomarkers from discovery to clinical practice is still a process filled with pitfalls and limitations. To prove clinical utility and performance, these candidate biomarkers need to be reproducible, specific, sensitive, and validated using large sample cohorts, all of which require development of robust and highly sensitive multiplex protein assays.
by Dr G. M. Mustafa, Prof. J. R. Petersen, Prof. L. Denner Prof. F. A. Hussain and Prof. C. Elferink
Background
Although remarkable scientific and technological advances in medicine have been achieved, cancer incidences are still increasing worldwide with the ratio of deaths to new cancer cases remaining relatively unchanged at 49% [1]. The ability of physicians to effectively treat and cure cancer is directly dependent on their ability to detect cancer at an early stage. When cancer develops in an area of the body, such as an organ, as long as it hasn’t spread (metastasized), it may respond well to treatment and in some cases a cure may be possible. Many disease states, especially various types of cancer, can be better diagnosed by the aid of biomarkers, a key element of modern diagnostics and the value of which continuing to increase in modern medicine. As indicators of biological status, biomarkers, whether detected in blood, urine, or tissue, can be useful for the clinical management of various diseases. The changes in biomarker concentration have the potential to guide therapy in disease progression, prognosis and potentially be used to identify the stage of the cancer. Overall, protein biomarkers are needed to help our understanding of cancer biology and to improve our ability to diagnose, monitor and treat cancers.
Biomarker research
One of the goals of biomarker research is to discover and validate markers that can be used in clinical research applications such as patient stratification, diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring, or in pharmaceutical development to fully characterize the behaviour and efficacy of candidate drugs. The identification of prognostic, predictive or pharmacodynamic biomarkers can be carried out using genomic or proteomic technologies. Proteomic profiling of body fluids, such as serum, has potential as a sensitive diagnostic tool for early cancer detection. Serum provides a rich sample for diagnostic analyses because the expression and release of proteins (potential biomarkers) into the bloodstream occurs in response to specific physiological states. As human plasma has a 1010 dynamic range of proteins [2] with 22 proteins being responsible for 99% of the proteins identified, one of the challenges working with such a complex biological fluid is the difficulty in identifying medium and low abundance proteins. Thus, sample enrichment is a very important step in the discovery phase.
Biomarker validation – the rate-limiting step
Discovery platforms typically result in an extensive hit-list of candidate biomarkers. Important analytical and clinical hurdles must be overcome to allow the most promising protein biomarker candidates to advance into clinical validation studies. Over the last several years, many proteins have been proposed as potential biomarkers for various cancers without further evaluation of their clinical utility. The lack of follow-up is due, to a large extent, to the lack of an efficient technology for reproducible and accurate verification of these proteins as biomarkers in a specific disease state. Without proper validation, the identification of biomarkers is of minimal utility. To show clinical utility, biomarkers must be validated using a reliable assay with an independent cohort in a prospective or longitudinal study. A search of the scientific literature clearly indicates that most published biomarkers are inadequate for replacing an existing clinical test or that they are only useful for detecting disease in an advanced stage, where treatment success and/or survival rates are low. Traditionally, validation has been performed with immunoassays which require antibodies that are often unavailable or of poor quality. In addition the immunoassays may not adequately identify or differentiate between post-translational modifications. The process of generating antibodies is also time consuming and costly and is therefore not a practical solution for screening the hit-list of proteins derived from discovery.
Targeted mass spectrometry for multiplexed protein quantitation
A targeted mass-spectrometry-based antibody-free platform for multiplexed protein quantitation fills the well-recognized gap between early biomarker discovery and final clinical assay. Stable-isotope-dilution multiple-reaction-monitoring mass spectrometry (SID-MRM-MS) is a novel technique whereby the quantification of a protein can be calculated from isotopically labelled peptide standards of known concentrations that correspond to the protein of interest [3]. With two to five unique peptides per protein, the concentration of the protein of interest can be accurately determined. Further, the technique can be multiplexed to allow for the simultaneous measurement of many proteins. We have validated this approach using serum samples to identify biomarkers in hepatocellular carcinoma and are confident that it also has the potential for biomarker discovery in other cancers [4]. This powerful workflow opens up new possibilities for biomarker research that may lead to faster, more robust, and improved clinical assays. Targeted proteomics workflows based on SRM and MRM on triple quadruple mass spectrometry platforms show the potential for rapid verification of biomarker candidates in plasma by using heavy isotope-labeled internal standards. This approach has the selectivity, reproducibility, and sensitivity for a range of multiplexed protein assays and has the potential for quantifying protein isoforms in addition to posttranslational modifications for which good quality antibodies often do not exist. The ability to rapidly quantify proteins in a highly multiplexed manner using MRM with internal standard peptides closes the gap between discovery and validation in the biomarker pipeline, which is the rate-limiting step in the biomarker world. Using a triple quadruple mass spectrometer, the first mass analyser (Q1) is set to only transmit the parent weight of a peptide from the target protein, the collision energy is then optimized to produce a diagnostic charged fragment of a peptide fragment in the second mass analyser (Q2), and the third mass analyser (Q3) is set to only transmit and identify this diagnostic peptide fragment (Fig. 1). The key strength of this work flow is that the protein assay development for hundreds of proteins can occur on the order of a month. Once identified, it just takes months to validate the low to sub-ng/ml concentration of candidate biomarkers in hundreds of blood samples. No target-specific reagents, such as antibodies, are needed and only a very small amount of sample (<500ng) is required for quantitation. In addition all potential biomarkers can be quantified in a single assay that is more accurate, rapid, and cost-effective. The capacity of SRM for multiplexed, high-throughput analysis, together with its sensitivity and quantitation, positions SRM as a promising application in medical screening [5, 6].
Summary
The type of clinical proteomics described here has important direct ‘bedside’ applications. We can foresee a future in which the physician will use these proteomic analyses at many points in the management of disease and drug discovery.
References
1. Yeom YI, Kim SY, Lee HG, et al. Cancer biomarkers in ’omics age. Biochip Journal 2008; 2(3): 160–174.
2. Anderson L. Candidate-based proteomics in the search for biomarkers of cardiovascular disease. J Physiol. 2005; 15: 23–60.
3. Lange V, Picotti P, Domon B, Aebersold R. Selected reaction monitoring for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial. Mol Syst Biol. 2008; 4: 222.
4. Mustafa MG, Petersen JR, Ju H, Cicalese L, et al. Biomarker discovery for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis C-infected patients. Mol Cell Proteomics 2013; 12(12): 3640–3652
5. Keshishian H, Addona TA, Burgess M, et al. Quantitative, multiplexed assays for low abundance proteins in plasma by targeted mass spectrometry and stable isotope dilution. Mol Cell Proteomics (2007); 6(12): 2212–2229
6. Zhao Y, Jia W, Sun W, et al. Combination of improved 18O incorporation and multiple reaction monitoring: a universal strategy for absolute quantitative verification of serum candidate biomarkers of liver cancer. J Proteome Res. (2010); 9(6): 3319–3327
The authors
Gul M. Mustafa*1 PhD, John R. Petersen2 PhD, Larry Denner3 PhD, Feroze A. Hussain4 MD, and Cornelis Elferink1 PhD
1 Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
2 Victory Lakes Clinical Laboratory, Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
3 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
4 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
*Corresponding author
E-mail: gmmustaf@utmb.edu
November 2024
The leading international magazine for Clinical laboratory Equipment for everyone in the Vitro diagnostics
Beukenlaan 137
5616 VD Eindhoven
The Netherlands
+31 85064 55 82
info@clinlabint.com
PanGlobal Media is not responsible for any error or omission that might occur in the electronic display of product or company data.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept settingsHide notification onlyCookie settingsWe may ask you to place cookies on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience and to customise your relationship with our website.
Click on the different sections for more information. You can also change some of your preferences. Please note that blocking some types of cookies may affect your experience on our websites and the services we can provide.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to provide the website, refusing them will affect the functioning of our site. You can always block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and block all cookies on this website forcibly. But this will always ask you to accept/refuse cookies when you visit our site again.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies, but to avoid asking you each time again to kindly allow us to store a cookie for that purpose. You are always free to unsubscribe or other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies, we will delete all cookies set in our domain.
We provide you with a list of cookies stored on your computer in our domain, so that you can check what we have stored. For security reasons, we cannot display or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser's security settings.
.These cookies collect information that is used in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customise our website and application for you to improve your experience.
If you do not want us to track your visit to our site, you can disable this in your browser here:
.
We also use various external services such as Google Webfonts, Google Maps and external video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data such as your IP address, you can block them here. Please note that this may significantly reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will only be effective once you reload the page
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Maps Settings:
Google reCaptcha settings:
Vimeo and Youtube videos embedding:
.U kunt meer lezen over onze cookies en privacy-instellingen op onze Privacybeleid-pagina.
Privacy policy