yacb_a_1531605_sm6751.docx (19.8 kB)

Evaluation of the Seegene Allplex™ Respiratory Panel for diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections

Download (19.8 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 11.10.2018, 12:46 by Stien Vandendriessche, Elizaveta Padalko, Elke Wollants, Charlotte Verfaillie, Bruno Verhasselt, Liselotte Coorevits

Objectives: The Seegene AllplexTM Respiratory panel was retrospectively challenged using a collection of quality control samples (QCMD) and clinical samples previously analysed with validated routine methods.

Methods: A collection of 111 samples [43 QCMD samples, 13 bronchoalveolar lavage fluids and 55 nasopharyngeal aspirates/swabs] was tested with Seegene AllplexTM. The clinical samples were tested previously using either FTD® Respiratory Pathogens 21 qPCR assay (Fast Track Diagnostics), an in-house multiplex PCR for Bordetella, or BioGX Sample-ReadyTM Atypical pneumo panel (Becton Dickinson). Samples were stored at −80°C prior to analysis with Seegene Allplex™, nucleic acids were automatically extracted with NucliSENS Easymag (bioMérieux). Samples returning discordant results were subjected to repeat testing and/or additional testing by reference laboratories.

Results: Seegene correctly identified 41/43 QCMD samples (95.4%); two samples positive for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human metapneumovirus, respectively, were only correctly identified following repeat testing. In the 56 clinical samples, overall, 97 pathogens were identified: 65 pathogens (67.0%) were detected both by routine methods and Seegene, 24 pathogens (24.7%) only by routine methods, and 8 pathogens (8.2%) only by Seegene. The majority of discordant results was detected in samples with low pathogen load (22/32, 68.8%) and in samples containing multiple pathogens (25/32, 78.1%). Full agreement between methods was observed for influenza, RSV, adenovirus, Bordetella (para)pertussis and Chlamydia pneumoniae. Discordance was observed for human metapneumovirus, coronavirus OC43, bocavirus and parainfluenza virus, mainly type 4.

Conclusion: Overall, the Seegene AllplexTM assay performed well for routine detection of important respiratory targets. Acceptable agreement was observed between Seegene and other routine assays.


Reagents were provided at no cost by Seegene company (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea). The company had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.