BackgroundReal-time PCR (qPCR) based methods, such as the Xpert MTB/RIF, are increasingly being used to diagnose tuberculosis (TB). While qualitative methods are adequate for diagnosis, the therapeutic monitoring of TB patients requires quantitative methods currently performed using smear microscopy. The potential use of quantitative molecular measurements for therapeutic monitoring has been investigated but findings have been variable and inconclusive. The lack of an adequate reference method and reference materials is a barrier to understanding the source of such disagreement. Digital PCR (dPCR) offers the potential for an accurate method for quantification of specific DNA sequences in reference materials which can be used to evaluate quantitative molecular methods for TB treatment monitoring.MethodsTo assess a novel approach for the development of quality assurance materials we used dPCR to quantify specific DNA sequences in a range of prototype reference materials and evaluated accuracy between different laboratories and instruments. The materials were then also used to evaluate the quantitative performance of qPCR and Xpert MTB/RIF in eight clinical testing laboratories.ResultsdPCR was found to provide results in good agreement with the other methods tested and to be highly reproducible between laboratories without calibration even when using different instruments. When the reference materials were analysed with qPCR and Xpert MTB/RIF by clinical laboratories, all laboratories were able to correctly rank the reference materials according to concentration, however there was a marked difference in the measured magnitude.ConclusionsTB is a disease where the quantification of the pathogen could lead to better patient management and qPCR methods offer the potential to rapidly perform such analysis. However, our findings suggest that when precisely characterised materials are used to evaluate qPCR methods, the measurement result variation is too high to determine whether molecular quantification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis would provide a clinically useful readout. The methods described in this study provide a means by which the technical performance of quantitative molecular methods can be evaluated independently of clinical variability to improve accuracy of measurement results. These will assist in ultimately increasing the likelihood that such approaches could be used to improve patient management of TB.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1696-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This work validates dPCR as an SI-traceable reference measurement procedure based on enumeration and demonstrates how it can be applied for assignment of copy number concentration and fractional abundance values to DNA reference materials in an aqueous solution. High-accuracy measurements using dPCR will support the implementation and traceable standardization of molecular diagnostic procedures needed for advancements in precision medicine.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) is an important tool in pathogen detection. However, the use of different qPCR components, calibration materials and DNA extraction methods reduces comparability between laboratories, which can result in false diagnosis and discrepancies in patient care. The wider establishment of a metrological framework for nucleic acid tests could improve the degree of standardisation of pathogen detection and the quantification methods applied in the clinical context. To achieve this, accurate methods need to be developed and implemented as reference measurement procedures, and to facilitate characterisation of suitable certified reference materials. Digital PCR (dPCR) has already been used for pathogen quantification by analysing nucleic acids. Although dPCR has the potential to provide robust and accurate quantification of nucleic acids, further assessment of its actual performance characteristics is needed before it can be implemented in a metrological framework, and to allow adequate estimation of measurement uncertainties. Here, four laboratories demonstrated reproducibility (expanded measurement uncertainties below 15%) of dPCR for quantification of DNA from human cytomegalovirus, with no calibration to a common reference material. Using whole-virus material and extracted DNA, an intermediate precision (coefficients of variation below 25%) between three consecutive experiments was noted. Furthermore, discrepancies in estimated mean DNA copy number concentrations between laboratories were less than twofold, with DNA extraction as the main source of variability. These data demonstrate that dPCR offers a repeatable and reproducible method for quantification of viral DNA, and due to its satisfactory performance should be considered as candidate for reference methods for implementation in a metrological framework.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00216-017-0206-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measurement of RNA can be used to study and monitor a range of infectious and non-communicable diseases, with profiling of multiple gene expression mRNA transcripts being increasingly applied to cancer stratification and prognosis. An international comparison study (Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM)-P103.1) was performed in order to evaluate the comparability of measurements of RNA copy number ratio for multiple gene targets between two samples. Six exogenous synthetic targets comprising of External RNA Control Consortium (ERCC) standards were measured alongside transcripts for three endogenous gene targets present in the background of human cell line RNA. The study was carried out under the auspices of the Nucleic Acids (formerly Bioanalysis) Working Group of the CCQM. It was coordinated by LGC (United Kingdom) with the support of National Institute of Standards and Technology (USA) and results were submitted from thirteen National Metrology Institutes and Designated Institutes. The majority of laboratories performed RNA measurements using RT-qPCR, with datasets also being submitted by two laboratories based on reverse transcription digital polymerase chain reaction and one laboratory using a next-generation sequencing method. In RT-qPCR analysis, the RNA copy number ratios between the two samples were quantified using either a standard curve or a relative quantification approach. In general, good agreement was observed between the reported results of ERCC RNA copy number ratio measurements. Measurements of the RNA copy number ratios for endogenous genes between the two samples were also consistent between the majority of laboratories. Some differences in the reported values and confidence intervals (‘measurement uncertainties’) were noted which may be attributable to choice of measurement method or quantification approach. This highlights the need for standardised practices for the calculation of fold change ratios and uncertainties in the area of gene expression profiling.

Key comparison CCQM-K86 was performed to demonstrate and document the capacity of interested national metrology institutes (NMIs) and designated institutes (DIs) in the determination of the relative quantity of two specific genomic DNA fragments present in a biological tissue. The study provides the support for the following measurement claim: "Quantification of the ratio of the number of copies of specified intact sequence fragments of a length in the range of 70 to 100 nucleotides in a single genomic DNA extract from ground maize seed materials".The study was carried out under the auspices of the Bioanalysis Working Group (BAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) and was piloted by the Institute for Reference Materials and Methods (IRMM) in Geel (Belgium).The following laboratories (in alphabetical order) participated in this key comparison: AIST (Japan), CENAM (Mexico), DMSc (Thailand), GLHK (Hong Kong), IRMM (European Union), KRISS (Republic of Korea), LGC (United Kingdom), MIRS/NIB (Slovenia), NIM (PR China), NIST (USA), NMIA (Australia), TÜBITAK UME (Turkey) and VNIIM (Russian Federation).The following laboratories (in alphabetical order) participated in a pilot study that was organized in parallel: LGC (United Kingdom), PKU (PR China), NFRI (Japan) and NIMT (Thailand).Good agreement was observed between the reported results of eleven participants.Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).