The A3P association has specialized on the organization of events, on which suppliers of innovative test systems and users from the biopharmaceutical industry are discussing and presenting microbiological methods as well as regulatory requirements and guidelines within talks and working groups. In the A3P Microbiology Online-Webinar (October 2020), the CytoInspect as a rapid PCR-based method…
The benefits of HPV Genotyping
Testing for high-risk types of human papillomaviruses (HPV) has become an important part of cervical cancer screening programs as it is well known that persistent high-risk HPV infections significantly increases the risk of CIN2+ formation1. However, if high risk HPV types with different carcinogenic potential are grouped together in HPV tests, this may result in a significant loss of clinical specificity. Genotyping is therefore indispensable for the actual detection of persistent carcinogenic high-risk HPV types and thus a decisive prerequisite for risk-based patient management 2.
The use of HPV genotyping in screening programs not only achieves improved risk-based management for cervical cancer prevention, but also serves a targeted monitoring of HPV vaccination programs 3,4.
PapilloCheck® was subjected to the clinical suitability study of VALGENT specifically established for HPV genotyping assays as part of the Valgent program. The results support the use of PapilloCheck® in cervical cancer screening programs 5.
1 Sand, Freja Lærke, et al. "Risk of CIN3 or worse with persistence of 13 individual oncogenic HPV types. "International journal of cancer 144.8 (2019): 1975-1982.
2 Perkins, Rebecca B., Mark Schiffman, and Richard S. Guido. "The next generation of cervical cancer screening programs: making the case for risk-based guidelines."Current Problems in Cancer 42.5 (2018): 521-526.
3 Bhatia, Ramya, et al. "Use of HPV testing for cervical screening in vaccinated women—insights from the SHEVa (Scottish HPV Prevalence in Vaccinated Women) study."International journal of cancer 138.12 (2016): 2922-2931.
4 Bhatia, K Cuschieri “Impact of vaccination on the performance of clinically validated HPV tests for primary screening” www.HPVWorld.com, (2019): 76.
5 Heard, I., et al. "Clinical and analytical performance of the PapilloCheck HPV-Screening assay using the VALGENT framework." Journal of Clinical Virology 81 (2016): 6-11.
Genotyping of 24 pathogenic HPV types with PapilloCheck®
The HPV test PapilloCheck® is an in vitro diagnostic (CE-IVD) for the qualitative detection and genotyping of 24 pathogenic HPV types (18 high-risk and 6 low-risk) in human cervical smears.
The PapilloCheck® test system is based on the detection and identification of a fragment of the viral E1 gene using a DNA microarray and allows the simultaneous analysis of 12 cervical samples.
- Kit with biochips and solutions for HPV genotyping of 48 samples
- Each biochip contains 12 DNA arrays allowing simultaneous analysis of 12 cervical samples
- Simultaneous genotyping of 24 human pathogenic HPV types (18 high-risk and 6 low-risk types)
- Differentiation between single and multiple infections
- Classification according to risk potential
- High clinical sensitivity and specificityv
- Integrated quality control system: Extensive on-chip controls for reliable results
- Automatic scanning, analysis, data collection and reporting with CheckScanner™ and CheckReport™ Software
PapilloCheck® HPV Genotyping - manual workflow
Publications HPV neu
|Comparison||2019||Pitfalls of commercially available HPV tests in HPV68a detection||Jaworek H, KubanovaI K, KoudelakovaI V, Slavkovsky R, Drabek J, Hajduch M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681972/pdf/pone.0220373.pdf|
|Epidemiology study||2019||"High prevalence of human papillomavirus|
infection in HIV-infected women living in
French Antilles and French Guiana"
|Abel S, Najoullah F, Voluménie J, Accrombessi L, Carles G, Catherine D, Chiappetta D, Clavel C, Dodjo-Sodokine A, El Guadj M, Jean-Marie J, Molinié V, Pierre-Francois S, Stegmann-Planchard S, Vatilcke V, Vaz T, Nacher M, Cabié A, Césaire R. ||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6726368/pdf/pone.0221334.pdf|
|Epidemiology study||2019||Prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in oocyte donors and women treated for infertility: An observational laboratory-based study||Jaworek H, Zborilova B, Koudelakova V, Brezinova J, Vrbkova J, Oborna I, Hajduch M. ||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728719/pdf/main.pdf|
|Comparison||2019||The absence of high-risk human papillomavirus in Czech non-small cell lung cancer cases.||Jaworek H, Koudelakova V, Slavkovsky R, Drabek J, Hajduch M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30631209|
|Self sampling||2018||A Head-to-Head Analytical Comparison of Cobas 4800 HPV, PapilloCheck HPV Screening, and LMNX Genotyping Kit HPV GP for Detection of Human Papillomavirus DNA in Cervical and Cervicovaginal Swabs.||Jaworek H, Koudelakova V, Drabek J, Vrbkova J, Zborilova B, Oborna I, Brezinova J, Marek R, Huml K, Vanek P, Hajduch M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165205|
|Anal swab specimens||2018||Prevalence and Risk Factors for Anal Human Papillomavirus Infection in |
Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Men Who Have Sex with Men.
|Combes JD1, Heard I2,3, |
Poizot-Martin I4,5, Canestri A6, Lion A7, Piroth L8,9, Didelot JM10, Ferry T11, Patey O12, Marchand L13, Flejou JF14,15, Clifford GM1, Etienney I16; ANRS EP57 APACHES Study group.
|Comparison||2018||PCR-RFLP assay as an option for primary HPV test||Golfetto L1, Alves EV1, Martins TR2, |
Sincero TCM3, Castro JBS4, Dannebrock C5, Oliveira JG6, Levi JE2, Onofre ASC3, Bazzo ML1,3.
|Comparison, genotyping||2018||Comparison of PapilloCheck and Linear Array to Detect and |
Differentiate Human Papillomaviruses in Cervical and Tonsillar Smears from Females with Cervical Intraepithelial Lesions
|Donata Grimm, Linn Woelber,Katharina Prieske, Barbara Schmalfeldt, Sascha Kürti,1 Chia-Jung Busch, Ingo Teudt, Oliver Brummer, Volkmar Mueller, and Thomas Meyer||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6348707/|
|Epidemiology study||2018||Predictors of abnormal cytology among HPV-infected women in remote territories of French Guiana.||Adenis A, Dufit V, Douine M, Ponty J, Bianco L, Najioullah F, Kilié O, Catherine D, Thomas N, Deshayes JL, Brousse P, Carles G, Grenier C, Lacoste V, Molinie V, Cesaire R, Nacher M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29368607|
|Epidemiology study||2017||The singular epidemiology of HPV infection among French Guianese women with normal cytology.||Adenis A, Dufit V, Douine M, Ponty J, Bianco L, Najioullah F, Kilié O, Catherine D, Thomas N, Deshayes JL, Brousse P, Carles G, Grenier C, Lacoste V, Molinie V, Cesaire R, Nacher M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340612|
|Epidemiology study||2017||High prevalence of HPV infection in the remote villages of French Guiana: an epidemiological study.||Adenis A, Dufit V, Douine M, Corlin F, Ayhan G, Najioullah F, Molinie V, Brousse P, Carles G, Lacoste V, Cesaire R, Nacher M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28091335|
|FFPT samples||2017||Papillomavirus genotyping on formaldehyde fixed paraffin-embedded|
tissues in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia.
|Mazellier S1, Dadone-Montaudie B2, |
Chevallier A2, Loubatier C3,4, Vitale S3, Cardot-Leccia N2, Angeli K5, Trastour C6, Delotte J6, Giordanengo V3, Ambrosetti D2.
|HPV DNA methylation||2017||Human Papillomavirus DNA Methylation Predicts Response to Treatment |
Using Cidofovir and Imiquimod in Vulval Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3.
|Jones SEF1, Hibbitts S2, Hurt CN3, |
Bryant D4, Fiander AN2, Powell N2, Tristram AJ2.
|FFPE vulvar biopsis||2017||Papillomavirus genotyping on formaldehyde fixed paraffin-embedded tissues in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia.||Mazellier S1, Dadone-Montaudie B2, Chevallier A2, Loubatier C3,4, Vitale S3, Cardot-Leccia N2, Angeli K5, Trastour C6, Delotte J6, Giordanengo V3, Ambrosetti D2.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28795241|
|HPV and HIV||2017||Human Papillomavirus infection and cervical lesions in HIV infected |
women on antiretroviral treatment in Thailand.
|Delory T1, Ngo-Giang-Huong N2, |
Rangdaeng S3, Chotivanich N4, Limtrakul A5, Putiyanun C6, Suriyachai P7, Matanasarawut W8, Jarupanich T9, Liampongsabuddhi P10, Heard I11, Jourdain G2, Lallemant M2, Le Coeur S12; PapilloV study group.
|Genotyping||2017||Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination on Prevalence of |
Vaccine Genotypes in Young Sexually Active Women in France.
|Heard I1,2, Tondeur L3, Arowas L1, |
Demazoin M1, Falguières M1, Parent Du Chatelet I4; pour le groupe CHlaHPV.
|biopsis collected during |
bronchoscopy and transported in PreservCyt
|2017||Investigating the role of HPV in lung cancer||Argyri E1, Tsimplaki E1, Marketos C2, Politis G2, Panotopoulou E1.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28720459|
|FFPE cervical biopsis||2016||Analysis of the Prevalence of HTLV-1 Proviral DNA in Cervical Smears and Carcinomas from HIV Positive and Negative Kenyan Women||He X1, Maranga IO2,3, Oliver AW4, Gichangi P5, Hampson L6, Hampson IN7.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27608036|
|Genotyping||2016||HPV genotype distribution in Brazilian women with and without cervical|
lesions: correlation to cytological data.
|Martins TR1,2, Mendes de Oliveira C3, |
Rosa LR3, de Campos Centrone C3, Rodrigues CL3, Villa LL4,5, Levi JE3,5.
|clinical and analytical evaluation, |
|2016||Clinical and analytical performance of the PapilloCheck HPV-Screening assay |
using the VALGENT framework.
|Heard I1, Cuschieri K2, Geraets DT3, Quint W3, Arbyn M4.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27262102|
|Genotyping, anal swab specimens||2015||HPV infection-associated anogenital cyto-colpo-histological findings and molecular typing in HIV-positive women.||Tso FK1, Rodrigues CL2, Levi JE2, Mattosinho de Castro Ferraz MG3, Speck NM1, Ribalta JC1.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26782408|
|self sampling||2015||[Utilization of self-sampling kits for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening - pilot study].||Ondryášová H, Koudeláková V, Drábek J, Vaněk P, Slavkovský R, Hajdúch M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26741158|
|clinical validation||2016||VALGENT: A protocol for clinical validation of human papillomavirus assays.||Arbyn M1, Depuydt C2, Benoy I2, Bogers J2, Cuschieri K3, Schmitt M4, Pawlita M4, Geraets D5, Heard I6, Gheit T7, Tommasino M7, Poljak M8, Bonde J9, Quint W5.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26522865|
|HPV screening||2015||The PapilloCheck Assay for Detection of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.||Crosbie EJ1, Bailey A2, Sargent A2, Gilham C3, Peto J3, Kitchener HC4.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26338859|
|HPV screening||2015||Which high-risk HPV assays fulfil criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening?||Arbyn M1, Snijders PJ2, Meijer CJ2, Berkhof J3, Cuschieri K4, Kocjan BJ5, Poljak M5.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25936581|
|Comparison||2015||Comparison of two techniques for HPV genotyping in women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion].||Serravalle K1, Levi JE2, Oliveira C2, Queiroz C1, Dantas Á1, Studart E1.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25760629|
|anal swab specimens||2015||Anal human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalences and factors associated with abnormal anal cytology in HIV-infected women in an urban cohort from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.||Cambou MC1, Luz PM, Lake JE, Levi JE, Coutinho JR, de Andrade A, Heinke T, Derrico M, Veloso VG, Friedman RK, Grinsztejn B.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25361401|
|Comparison||2014||Resequencing microarray technology for genotyping human papillomavirus in cervical smears.||Berthet N1, Falguières M2, Filippone C1, Bertolus C3, Bole-Feysot C4, Brisse S5, Gessain A1, Heard I6, Favre M7.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25383888|
|Genotyping||2014||[Distribution of human papillomavirus genotypes amongst HIV-negative and HIV-positive women diagnosed with ASC-US cytology. Preliminary data of a local retrospective study].||Gonfrier G1, Delotte J2, Chevallier A3, Giordanengo V4.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25281479|
|Genotyping||2014||[Genotype distribution of human papillomavirus in women from the state of Bahia, Brazil].||Bruno A1, Serravalle K2, Travassos AG2, Lima BG3.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25272363|
|Comparison||2014||Hybrid capture II and PapilloCheck® tests for detection of anal high-risk human papillomavirus.||Maia LB1, Marinho LC1, Bocca AL1, Cavalcante Neto FF1, Velasco LF2, Costa PG2, Carneiro FP1, Oliveira PG3.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24861299|
|penile shaft, balanopreputial sulcus and urethra collected in Digene (Qiagen)||2014||Genital prevalence of HPV types and co-infection in men.||Freire MP1, Pires D2, Forjaz R2, Sato S2, Cotrim I3, Stiepcich M4, Scarpellini B4, Truzzi JC5.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24642151|
|Genotyping||2014||Genotypes and prevalence of HPV single and multiple concurrent infections in women with HSIL.||Beca F1, Pinheiro J, Rios E, Pontes P, Amendoeira I.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24623593|
|Genotyping||2014||Global improvement in genotyping of human papillomavirus DNA: the 2011 HPV LabNet International Proficiency Study.||Eklund C1, Forslund O, Wallin KL, Dillner J.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24478473|
|untreated biopsis of laryngeal tumors collected in PreservCyt||2014||Prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in Greek patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx.||Laskaris S1, Sengas I2, Maragoudakis P3, Tsimplaki E4, Argyri E4, Manolopoulos L2, Panotopoulou E5.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25275084|
|biopsis of oral tongue tumors collected in PreservCyt||2014||Prevalence and expression of human papillomavirus in 53 patients with oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma.||Tsimplaki E1, Argyri E, Xesfyngi D, Daskalopoulou D, Stravopodis DJ, Panotopoulou E.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24511049|
|swab specimens from oral tongue, maxilla, mandible, mouth, buccal mucosa collected in PreservCyt||2013||Prevalence of human papillomavirus in 45 greek patients with oral cancer.||Kouvousi M1, Xesfyngi D, Tsimplaki E, Argyri E, Ioannidou G, Ploxorou M, Lazaris AC, Patsouris E, Panotopoulou E.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23533409|
|Genotyping||2013||Prevalence of type-specific HPV infection in Uruguay.||Berois N1, Heard I, Fort Z, Alonso R, Sica A, Moerzinger P, Rodriguez G, Sancho-Garnier H, Osinaga E, Favre M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24375018|
|anal swab specimens||2013||Value of human papillomavirus typing for detection of anal cytological abnormalities.||Maia LB1, Marinho LC, Barbosa TW, Velasco LF, Costa PG, Carneiro FP, de Oliveira PG.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24339460|
|Comparison||2013||The cytology and DNA detection by the PapilloCheck(®) test in the diagnosis of human papillomavirus infection.||Vieira L1, Almeida A.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24265920|
|Genotyping||2013||Human papillomavirus types distribution in organised cervical cancer screening in France.||Heard I1, Tondeur L, Arowas L, Falguières M, Demazoin MC, Favre M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24244490|
|HPV and HIV||2013||HIV Infection Alters the Spectrum of HPV Subtypes Found in Cervical Smears and Carcinomas from Kenyan Women.||Maranga IO1, Hampson L, Oliver AW, He X, Gichangi P, Rana F, Opiyo A, Hampson IN.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23494633|
|Genotyping||2013||Poor prognosis associated with human papillomavirus α7 genotypes in cervical carcinoma cannot be explained by intrinsic radiosensitivity.||Hall JS1, Iype R, Armenoult LS, Taylor J, Miller CJ, Davidson S, de Sanjose S, Bosch X, Stern PL, West CM.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23332225|
|anal swab specimens, urine||2012||Assessing urine human papillomavirus polymerase chain reaction testing as a tool for screening anal HPV infection in HIV-positive MSM.||Lanoix JP1, Pannier C, Borel A, El Samad Y, Robin C, Douadi Y, Woimant M, Fouche B, Lecaque C, Ganry O, Duverlie G, Sevestre H, Schmit JL.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320265|
|paraffin embedded samples of |
vaginal or vulvar cancerous tissue
|2012||Human papillomavirus genotyping and e6/e7 mRNA expression in greek women with intraepithelial neoplasia and squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina and vulva.||Tsimplaki E1, Argyri E, Michala L, Kouvousi M, Apostolaki A, Magiakos G, Papassideri I, Panotopoulou E.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22187556|
|FFPE cervical biopsis||2012||Improvement of DNA Extraction for Human Papillomavirus Genotyping from Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissues||Isabelle Cannavo,1,2 Céline Loubatier,2,3 Anne Chevallier,4 and Valérie Giordanengocorresponding author1,2,3||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3559202/|
|Genotyping||2011||Human Papillomavirus genotype testing combined with cytology as a 'test of cure' post treatment: the importance of a persistent viral infection.||Jones J1, Saleem A, Rai N, Shylasree TS, Ashman S, Gregory K, Powell N, Tristram A, Fiander A, Hibbitts S.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21831706|
|Comparison||2011||Evaluation of a novel microplate colorimetric hybridization genotyping assay for human papillomavirus.||Barcellos RB1, Almeida SE, Sperhacke RD, Verza M, Rosso F, Medeiros RM, Perizzolo PF, Cortez-Herrera E, Rossetti ML.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21807028|
|Comparison, HPV screening||2011||Comparison of the PapilloCheck® assay with the digene HC2 HPV DNA assay for the detection of 13 high-risk human papillomaviruses in cervical and anal scrapes.||Didelot MN1, Boulle N, Damay A, Costes V, Segondy M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21678441|
|Genotyping||2011||Human papillomavirus type distribution in vulval intraepithelial neoplasia determined using PapilloCheck DNA Microarray.||Bryant D1, Rai N, Rowlands G, Hibbitts S, Jones J, Tristram A, Fiander A, Powell N.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618551|
|HPV screening||2011||A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial.||Kitchener HC1, Gilham C, Sargent A, Bailey A, Albrow R, Roberts C, Desai M, Mather J, Turner A, Moss S, Peto J.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21334200|
|Comparison||2010||Stepwise algorithm combining HPV high-risk DNA-based assays and RNA-based assay for high grade CIN in women with abnormal smears referred to colposcopy.||Halfon P1, Benmoura D, Agostini A, Khiri H, Pénaranda G, Martineau A, Blanc B.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21263189|
|Epidemiological study||2010||Prevalence of low-risk and high-risk types of human papillomavirus and other risk factors for HPV infection in Germany within different age groups in women up to 30 years of age: an epidemiological observational study.||Iftner T1, Eberle S, Iftner A, Holz B, Banik N, Quint W, Straube AN.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20872721|
|Comparison||2010||Increase in viral load, viral integration, and gain of telomerase genes during uterine cervical carcinogenesis can be simultaneously assessed by the HPV 16/18 MLPA-assay.||Theelen W1, Speel EJ, Herfs M, Reijans M, Simons G, Meulemans EV, Baldewijns MM, Ramaekers FC, Somja J, Delvenne P, Hopman AH.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20813962|
|Comparison||2010||Evaluation of the performance of the novel PapilloCheck HPV genotyping test by comparison with two other genotyping systems and the HC2 test.||Schopp B1, Holz B, Zago M, Stubenrauch F, Petry KU, Kjaer SK, Iftner T.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166179|
|HPV and HIV, anal swab specimens||2010||Human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence and type distribution, and HPV-associated cytological abnormalities in anal specimens from men infected with HIV who have sex with men.||Damay A1, Fabre J, Costes V, Didelot JM, Didelot MN, Boulle N, Segondy M.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166175|
|clinical validation, HPV screening||2010||Comparison of the clinical performance of PapilloCheck human papillomavirus detection with that of the GP5+/6+-PCR-enzyme immunoassay in population-based cervical screening.||Hesselink AT1, Heideman DA, Berkhof J, Topal F, Pol RP, Meijer CJ, Snijders PJ.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042622|
|comparison, clinical validation||2010||Comparison of the clinical performance of carcinogenic HPV typing of the Linear Array and Papillocheck HPV-screening assay.||Halfon P1, Benmoura D, Khiri H, Penaranda G, Blanc B, Riggio D, Sandri MT.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19939732|
|Comparison||2009||Comparison of the PapilloCheck DNA micro-array Human Papillomavirus detection assay with Hybrid Capture II and PCR-enzyme immunoassay using the GP5/6+ primer set.||Jones J1, Powell NG, Tristram A, Fiander AN, Hibbitts S.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394266|
|Comparison||2009||Human Papillomavirus negative but dyskaryotic cervical cytology: re-analysis of molecular testing.||Peevor R1, Bowden S, Jones J, Fiander AN, Hibbitts S.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19264544|
|Analytical evaluation, Genotyping||2009||Analytical evaluation of the PapilloCheck test, a new commercial DNA chip for detection and genotyping of human papillomavirus.||Dalstein V1, Merlin S, Bali C, Saunier M, Dachez R, Ronsin C.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19041893|
|Comparison||2008||Comparison of molecular assays for detection and typing of human papillomavirus.||Koidl C1, Bozic M, Hadzisejdic I, Grahovac M, Grahovac B, Kranewitter W, Marth E, Kessler HH.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18439557|
Comparison of the PapilloCheck® DNA micro-array Human Papillomavirus detection assay with Hybrid Capture II and PCR-enzyme immunoassay using the GP5/6+ primer set.
J Clin Virol. 2009 Jun;45(2):100-4. Epub 2009 Apr 24
J. Jones, N.G. Powell, A. Tristram, A.N. Fiander, S. Hibbitts
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cardiff University, School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, United Kingdom
BACKGROUND: Cervical screening detects precancerous cells and routine screening could be improved by testing for Human Papillomavirus (HPV), the virus that causes cervical cancer. HPV infection is common and the benefit of HPV testing would be identification of women who are HPV negative and at low risk of developing cancer. STUDY DESIGN: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Greiner Bio-One PapilloCheck® micro-array assay (PapilloCheck® ) for detection of HPV in comparison with Hybrid Capture II (hc2) and PCR-enzyme immunoassay (PCR-EIA) using the GP5/6+ primers. RESULTS: Samples from a cytologically defined population (n=878) were analysed and 187 samples also had histology information. Overall, 674 out of 878 samples gave a consistent result (76.8%; 95% CI 73.83-79.52%) on all three platforms. The genotype results obtained by PapilloCheck® and PCR-EIA were compared and 94% were consistent (95% CI 92.1-96.4%). The main difference was the poor Kappa agreement for detection of high risk (HR) type 35 (Kappa=0.190) with all inconsistent results being HR positive by PCR-EIA assay but negative on the PapilloCheck® platform. There was no statistically significant difference between the performance of each assay when HR HPV positive samples were linked with clinical result (cytology and histology grade). PapilloCheck® detected the highest number of HR HPV infections in samples with histology confirmed as CIN1, CIN2 and CIN3 (76.6%, 85% and 91.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PapilloCheck® proved to be a sensitive, reproducible, robust molecular assay for HPV genotyping with the potential for high throughput of specimens in a clinical setting.
Evaluation of the Performance of the Novel PapilloCheck® HPV Genotyping Test by Comparison With Two Other Genotyping Systems and the HC2 Test.
J Med Virol. 2010 Apr;82(4):605-15
B. Schopp,1 B. Holz,1 M. Zago,1 F. Stubenrauch,1 K.U. Petry,2 S. Krüger Kjaer,3 and T. Iftner1
1 Sektion of Experimentelle Virologie, Institute of Medical Virology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
2 General Hospital Wolfsburg, Wolfsburg, Germany
3 Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
The novel PapilloCheck® genotyping test was compared with SPF10 PCR LiPav1 and PGMY09/11 on hybrid capture 2 (HC2)- pretested samples. From results of 826 cervical samples detection rates and kappa values for the tests were calculated using a HPV type consensus definition. With PapilloCheck® HPV types 53, 56 and 33 were found with a sensitivity of 100%. The lowest detection rate was observed for HPV 35 (72.2%). The SPF10 PCR LiPav1 was found to be 100% positive for HPV 18, 31, 53, 56 and 35 and lowest for HPV 59 (81%). The PGMY09/11 system detected only HPV 59 at 100% detection rate and showed lowest sensitivity for HPV 56 (40.5%). Multiple infection rates ranged from 25.8% (PGMY09/11 PCR-LBA), over 39.5% (PapilloCheck® ) to 55.9% (SPF10 PCR LiPav1). In samples with higher viral DNA load detection rates and concordance between the genotyping tests increases. The kappa values in comparison to the HPV consensus type ranged from k=0.21 to k=0.82 for comparing SPF10 PCR with the HPV consensus type, while values for PGMY09/11 PCR ranged from k=0 to k=0.96 and were best for the PapilloCheck® (k=0.49-0.98). Detection rates for the identification of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) ranged from 93.7% (PGMY09/11 PCR) to 98.4% (PapilloCheck® , SPF10 PCR, HC2). In conclusion, this study shows that the PapilloCheck® gives comparable results to established PCR methods. However, these results also show a necessity for the standardization of genotype-specific HPV detection assays.
Quality Control Pharma
Detection of virus or mycoplasma contamination in cell cultures
The Inspect™ product line of Greiner Bio-One has been specifically developed for quality control in the biopharmaceutical industry to ensure the absence of any adventitious agents such as mycoplasmas and viruses in cell-culture based manufacturing processes.
CytoInspect is a DNA based microarray test system that is used for the detection and identification of mycoplasmas in cell culture by biopharmaceutical customers since 2006.
Thus, Greiner Bio-One has gained extensive experiences and a thorough understanding of both user demands and regulatory requirements in the quality control of manufacturing processes.
The Inspect™ platform has recently been extended with by two virus panels. by the addition of ViroInspect® Rodent 1 and ViroInspect® Rodent 2. ViroInspect® is a are rapid, highly sensitive and highly specific testing systems with integrated quality controls for the detection of viral contamination in cell cultures.
- CytoInspect™ Features
- Mycoplasma Identification
- Mycoplasma Testing Service
- ViroInspect® Features
- Ordering Information
Detection of mycoplasmas in cell cultures
CytoInspect™ is based on DNA microarray technology and enables the detection of all mycoplasma species, including the genera Acholeplasma, Spiroplasma and Ureaplasma. Additionally, 41 of the most important and most frequent mycoplasma pathogens can be clearly identified at species level (Table 1).
With results delivered in 5 hours, CytoInspect™ is a rapid and effective detection method compared to culture-based mycoplasma assays. Fast results mean that a contamination problem can be rapidly assessed and action can be taken, saving both time and money.
"In the GMP field, the CytoInspect™ from Greiner Bio-One for Mycoplasma testing is – in our experience – one of the best and most reliable test kits on the market. Manual processing of the samples is easy, evaluation is achieved automatically and results are quickly generated, which allow, in case of a positive mycoplasma finding, even the identification of the species.
In addition to that, the customer service is also particularly noteworthy: questions are answered immediately, cooperatively and in a highly professional way. In the GMP area, such a competent service is rarely found. We are more than satisfied to have established this technique in our laboratory and can offer it to our customers."
Dr. Stefanie Bayer
Labor LS, Bad Bocklet
- Sensitive, specific and robust DNA microarray-based mycoplasma detection system
- Identification of 41 mycoplasma species
- Fast results within 5 hours
- Detection of any species of mycoplasma with a universal probe
- Validated sensitivity of ≤ 10 CFU/ml
- Integrated on-chip control system
- CytoInspect™ DNA Extraction Kit for efficient DNA isolation
- Extensive validation acc. To Ph. Eur. (2.6.7, 2.6.21) and externally under GMP conditions
- Automated results analysis and report generation
- CheckReport™ Software, FDA compliant (21 CFR part 11)
At a Glance: The Benefits of Mycoplasma Identification:
Mycoplasma belong to the class of Mollicutes and represent one of the most frequent contaminants of cell substrates and cell-derived biological products. Mycoplasma contamination during biopharmaceutical manufacture is a significant threat to the production of high-quality biotechnological products and can comprise product safety. Further potential consequences of a mycoplasma contamination include a possible production shut-down and product loss, which subsequently can result in a regulatory and financial impact.
CytoInspect™ allows besides the possibility of a general mycoplasma detection via a universal probe, also the identification of 41 mycoplasma species. In case of a mycoplasma positive result, this benefit assists in determining the root-cause of the contamination and in specifying the entry point or source, which is the key to prevent from further spreading of the infection in the production process.
Early and reliable mycoplasma detection and identification with CytoInspect™ enables users to define appropriate corrective and preventive actions and therefore to follow an efficient, fast and safe contamination response plan.
Summary of benefits of mycoplasma identification:
- Assists in determining the root-cause of mycoplasma contamination
- Facilitates identification of the contamination source
- Knowing the source of the contamination is the key to prevent from further spreading
- Supports implementation of fast and effective corrective and preventive actions
- Improves the efficiency of the contamination response plan, also with regard to financial and regulatory aspects
Mycoplasma Testing Service
Fast results to drive decisions
Mycoplasma contamination is a serious problem in cell culture. Detailed investigations on the identity of the contaminating species showed that by far the largest portion of infections is caused by a relatively small number of mycoplasma and acholeplasma species: 90 – 95% of the contaminants were identified as either M. orale, M. hyorhinis, M. arginini, M. fermentans, M. hominis or A. laidlawii (Drexler and Uphoff, 2002).
Because the largest percentage of mycoplasma found in cell cultures are of human origin, one may assume that laboratory personnel is one of the major sources of contamination. Mycoplasmas are rapidly spread by using laboratory equipment, media, or reagents that have been contaminated by previous use in processing mycoplasma-infected cells
Advantages and Benefits
- Sensitive and robust PCR based mycoplasma testing
- Providing fast, reliable and affordable results
- Cells, cell culture suspensions up to 107 cells/ml, protein rich samples, cell culture media can be used as sample material
- Species identification of 9 of the most commonly contamination agents
We have the ability to offer a fast and reliable detection of mycoplasma contaminations in biological materials such as cells and cell culture supernatants, with accurate species identification to facilitate resolution of some prevailing mycoplasma contamination issues. In addition to the species identification of nine of the most common contaminants (table 1), a Yes/No detection of all mycoplasma species is also included.
That's how it works:
- Fill in the order form
- Take the sample material you want to get analysed
- Send your samples and the filled-out order form to our labour in Rainbach, Austria
- Turnaround time 48 - 72 hours
- You receive the results by email
Quality Virus Detection with ViroInspect® Rodent 1 & 2
Viral safety is a critical part of biological products throughout their development and their commercial release. Viral contamination can become a safety risk for patients having financial burdens on biopharmaceutical companies.
ViroInspect® is a rapid, highly sensitive and highly specific testing system for the usage in quality control of biopharmaceutical companies.
As >80 % of biopharmaceutical production is performed in rodent cells, the Rodent product line focuses on viruses, of which rodents are the natural host.
ViroInspect® Rodent 1 allows the detection and the identification of Rodent Parvoviruses 1, Porcine Circoviruses 1/2, Vesivirus 2117 and related isolates in biological materials such as cell culture samples.
Additionally, the ViroInspect® Rodent 2 enables the detection and identification of Rodent Calici-, Corona-, Paramyxo-, Picorna- and Reoviruses.
In a nutshell:
- short throughput times
- high sensitivity and specificity
ViroInspect® features and benefits
- Time-to-results in less than 9 hours, saving three weeks by replacing current in vitro and in vivo tests
- Integrated sample preparation, extraction of viral DNA and RNA, reverse transcription, PCR amplification, microarray, hybridisation, and software-based evaluation
- Comprehensive on-chip controls
- Sensitivity equal to / better than in vitro and in vivo tests
- Processing of sample volumes of up to 10 mL
- Validated in compliance with the ICH Q2 (R1) guideline
- Virus detection and identification within one test
- Parallel analysis of up to 24 samples
- Simple, precise results and automated report generation enable ‘go’ /’no-go’ decisions in a timely manner
- Less expensive than in vitro and in vivo tests
|Development of a highly sensitive PCR/DNA chip method to detect mycoplasmas in a veterinary modified live vaccine.||2018||Mbelo S, Gay V, Blanchard S, Abachin E, Falque S, Lechenet J, Poulet H, de Saint-Vis B||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29753589|
|Validation of a PCR coupled to a microarray method for detection of |
mycoplasma in vaccines.
>>see abstract below>>
|2017||Abachin E, Marius M, Falque S, Arnaud J, Detrez V, Imbert S, Mallet L, Bonnevay T.||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28951118|
|RMMs In-Depth Focus||2016||European Pharmaceutical Review (6) (Kilic)||https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/46555/rmms-supplement/|
|World Health Organization International Standard To Harmonize Assays for Detection of Mycoplasma DNA||2015||C. Micha Nübling, S.A. Baylis, K.M. Hanschmann, T. Montag-Lessing, M. Chudy, J. Kreß, U. Ulrych, S. Czurda, R. Rosengarten, and the Mycoplasma Collaborative Study Group||https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4551258/|
|A microarray for mycoplasma detection and identification: CytoInspect™||2013||Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods. Volume 4 (Stappert, Kilic)||-|
Validation of a PCR coupled to a microarray method for detection of mycoplasma in vaccines
Eric Abachin1, Marine Marius 1, Stephanie Falque, Julien Arnaud, Valerie Detrez, Sandy Imbert, Laurent Mallet2, Thierry Bonnevay2
1 Co-first author 2 Co-last author
Analytical Research and Development, Sanofi Pasteur, 69280 Marcy l’Etoile, France
The revised section of the European, United States, and Japan Pharmacopeias on mycoplasma testing provided guidance for the set up and validation of a nucleic acid amplification technique (NAT) as an alternative method to agar culture and indicator cell culture compendial methods. The CytoInspect™ method, based on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) coupled to microarray analysis, has been selected for detection and identification of mycoplasma in vaccines. To replace compendial methods, the alternative method must demonstrate equivalence in both limit of detection (LOD) and specificity compared with compendial methods.
Here, we summarize the validation of the CytoInspect™ method according to current pharmacopeia requirements. Validation of the robustness, sensitivity (at least 10 colony forming units/ml) and specificity of the CytoInspect™ method are demonstrated. Likewise, a comparability study was performed to compare the LOD for CytoInspect™ compared with the previously validated LOD for compendial culture tests.
© 2017 International Alliance for Biological Standardization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|CytoInspect™ (10 tests/kit)||Art.-Nr.: 464060|
|CytoInspect™ (60 tests/kit)||Art.-Nr.: 464070|
|CytoInspect™ DNA Extraction Kit (60 prep)||Art.-Nr.: 516070|
|ViroInspect® Rodent 1 (48 tests/kit)||Art.-Nr.: 467011|
|ViroInspect® Rodent 2 (48 tests/kit)||Art.-Nr.: 467015|
|Mycoplasma Testing Service||Art.-Nr.: 463090|
Smart. Efficient. Accurate.
CX NIMBUS® and CX STARlet
CX NIMBUS® and CX STARlet enable a streamlined use of PapilloCheck® the HPV genotyping kit from Greiner Bio-One. Both systems combine the advantages of automation with an outstanding methodology developed for the simultaneous screening and genotyping of human papilloma viruses.
Leading to a reliable detection of cervical cancer at an early stage.
- ready to use load & go reagents
- magnetic beats separation technology
- modular processing of extraction, PCR and hybridisation possible
- intelligent waste management
- fully automated sample prep from primary tubes
- simultaneous processing of different collection media
- cost and time savings due to minimum Hands-On Time
- robust DNA array technology
- LIMS compatible for automated result reporting
- liquid level detection, aspiration and clot detection monitoring
- built-in controls and quality control reporting
- Mid sized sample volumes
- For high sample throughput
- Automated Workflow
- Technical Support
- Ordering Information
Mid sized sample volumes
CX NIMBUS® is designed for laboratories with small to mid-throughput requirements. It is a compact liquid handling instrument that offers speed, flexibility and ease of use. CX NIMBUS® plus additionally automates the hybridisation set up.
Features and Benefits
- 48 PapilloCheck® samples can be processed simultaneously
- Primary tubes can be loaded directly into the CX NIMBUS®
- Different sampling systems can be used
- Less than 60 minutes Hands-On Time
For high sample throughput
The CX STARlet excels in automating multiple processing steps of the PapilloCheck® workflow through integrated DNA extraction, PCR set-up, PCR plate sealing and PCR. It offers our customers the comfort of minimal required staff interaction and maximal walkaway time with a weekly throughput of up to 864 patient samples.
Features and Benefits
- 96 PapilloCheck® samples can be processed simultaneously
- Primary tubes can be loaded directly into the CX STARlet
- Different sampling systems can be used
- Automated nucleic acid purification, PCR set-up, PCR and plate sealing
- Automatic verification of barcoded samples and reagents
- Integrated UV kit for the decontamination of DNA residues
- Less than 90 minutes Hands-On Time
CX NIMBUS® und CX NIMBUS® plus - simultaneous processing of 48 samples
Following work steps are processed automatically in CX NIMBUS® plus::
- DNA Extraction
CX STARlet and CX STARlet plus - simultaneous processing of 96 samples
Following work steps are processed automatically in CX STARlet plus:
- DNA Extraction
Technical Support & Maintenance
Greiner Bio-One offers different service packages for the CX™ automation platforms as well as for the CheckScanner™.
Our Maintenance Service is classified into preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance. Both services are provided by Greiner Bio-One during regular business hours based on the specific needs of a customer’s demand. The customer can choose between:
For further information on the available service packages, please contact [email protected].
If you have any questions concerning Greiner Bio-One products, please do not hesitate to contact your local Greiner Bio-One distributor or our technical support team of highly skilled and experienced scientists.
Telephone: +43 7949 2090 3090 E-Mail: [email protected]
Office hours for on-call service are:
Monday - Thursday 08:00 am - 03:00 pm (CET/CEST)
Friday 08:00 am - 12:00 noon (CET/CEST)
except local public holidays at the GBO Austria site
|CX NIMBUS® Automated analysis of 48 samples||Order no. 867070|
|CX NIMBUS® plus
Automated analysis of 48 samples, with hybridisation
|Order no. 867071|
|CX STARlet Automated analysis of 96 samples||Order no. 867072|
|CX STARlet plus
Automated analysis of 96 samples, with hybridisation
|Order no. 867073|
|CX Extraction Kit 48 preps||Order no. 517070|
CarnoCheck® – Simultaneous identification of 8 animal species in food products
The rapid and reliable examination of potentially adulterated meat products is a critical issue, not only because of specific food allergies and religious reasons but also to address fraud and malicious marketing practices.1,2,3
The identification of meat authenticity in meat products is an important procedure in food regulatory control.
Meat testing serves to determine:
- a fraudulent replacement of higher commercially valued meat species by inferior, cheaper or unwanted meat alternatives
- the presence of undeclared species
- exact food labeling4
CarnoCheck® is a DNA-based test kit for the determination of 8 animal species, allowing a rapid and reliable quality control of food products. CarnoCheck® permits the identification of even small traces of animal constituents and thus strengthens the confidence of the customer.
1 Koh, M. C., Lim, C. H., Chua, S. B., Chew, S. T., & Phang, S. T. W. (1998). Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) fingerprints for identification of red meat animal species. Meat Science, 48(3-4), 275-285.
2 Arslan, A., Ilhak, O. I., & Calicioglu, M. (2006). Effect of method of cooking on identification of heat processed beef using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. Meat Science, 72(2), 326-330.
3 Mane, B. G., Mendiratta, S. K., & Tiwari, A. K. (2009). Polymerase chain reaction assay for identification of chicken in meat and meat products. Food Chemistry, 116(3), 806-810.
4 Ballin, N. Z., Vogensen, F. K., & Karlsson, A. H. (2009). Species determination–Can we detect and quantify meat adulteration?. Meat science, 83(2), 165-174.
DNA-Chip for qualitative detection of 8 animal species in meat food products
CarnoCheck® is a PCR and microarray-based test kit for the qualitative detection of 8 animal species in food products that contain meat like sausages, soups, cheese, yogurt, butter, lasagna, cat or dog food.
The unequivocal and simultaneous identification of pig, cattle, sheep, turkey, chicken, horse, donkey and goat in raw, cooked and preserved food matrices can be achieved with the ready-to-use test system.
The major advantage of CarnoCheck® in comparison to other routine methods is that all 8 different animal species are detected within a single analysis. CarnoCheck® is an effective tool for the screening of species contamination in meat products.
- fast and detailed control of meat-containing food
- DNA-based assay for the simultaneous identification of 8 animal species
- raw, cooked and preserved food matrices can be tested
- parallel processing of 6 or 12 samples due to an innovative chip carrier design
- test kit with DNA-chips and solutions for 30 or 60 investigations
- comprehensive on-chip controls
- rapid digital evaluation and archiving of the results
- validation by external food and research institutes5,6
5 Iwobi, A. N., Huber, I., Hauner, G., Miller, A., & Busch, U. (2011). Biochip technology for the detection of animal species in meat products. Food Analytical Methods, 4(3), 389-398.
6 Stueber, E., Sperner, B., Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M., & Stolle, A. (2008). Comparison of three commercial test kits for species identification in scalding sausages. ARCHIV FUR LEBENSMITTELHYGIENE, 59(3), 84-91.
CarnoCheck® - Workflow
Quality Control Pharma
News / Events
Kathrin Köck MA.rer.nat.
+43 7949 2090 - 3090
Greiner Bio-One GmbH
Phone: +43 7949 2090-3090
Email: [email protected]