ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: L and E6/E7 gene amplification analyses were compared to identify human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and verify the HPV type, with the intent to minimize HPV typing errors. METHODS: L1 gene verified HPV typing was accomplished via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and membrane assays. Verification of HPV typing via E6/E7 genes was accomplished through nested multiplexed PCR. The results from 104 samples were compared. RESULTS: The rates of accordance and difference were 35% and 65%, respectively. For 29% of the analyses, nested multiplexed PCR was more diversified than the membrane assay. CONCLUSION: HPV can be classified into low-risk HPV and high-risk HPV groups. In parallel amplifications of the L and E genes is more efficient for accurate diagnosis in light of the different symptoms and attendant precautions of the risk groups.
Subject(s)
Humans , Gene Amplification , Light , Membranes , Polymerase Chain ReactionABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: L and E6/E7 gene amplification analyses were compared to identify human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and verify the HPV type, with the intent to minimize HPV typing errors. METHODS: L1 gene verified HPV typing was accomplished via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and membrane assays. Verification of HPV typing via E6/E7 genes was accomplished through nested multiplexed PCR. The results from 104 samples were compared. RESULTS: The rates of accordance and difference were 35% and 65%, respectively. For 29% of the analyses, nested multiplexed PCR was more diversified than the membrane assay. CONCLUSION: HPV can be classified into low-risk HPV and high-risk HPV groups. In parallel amplifications of the L and E genes is more efficient for accurate diagnosis in light of the different symptoms and attendant precautions of the risk groups.