Interlaboratory comparison of molecular detection of Cyclospora cayetanensis in routine diagnostic laboratories

OBJECTIVES: Although molecular detection of Cyclospora cayetanensis is increasingly incorporated into multiplex gastrointestinal diagnostic workflows, dedicated external quality assessment (EQA) programmes for Cyclospora remain limited. We performed a nationwide interlaboratory comparison to evaluate routine molecular detection of C. cayetanensis across decentralized ISO15189-accredited laboratories in the Netherlands. METHODS: An anonymized 11-sample panel containing unpreserved stool specimens and eNAT-preserved stool suspensions was distributed to laboratories in the Netherlands (n = 8) and Curaçao (n = 1). Laboratories analysed samples using their routine diagnostic workflows. Workflow characteristics, DNA extraction procedures, molecular platforms, and interpretation criteria were collected by a structured questionnaire. Because detection of Cryptosporidium spp. is usually performed within the same workflow and present similar extraction challenges, Cryptosporidium-positive samples were included as internal workflow controls. Aggregated retrospective laboratory data were collected to explore surveillance feasibility and to gain insight in seasonality of C. cayetanensis and Cryptosporidium spp. RESULTS: Seven laboratories performed molecular detection of C. cayetanensis, while all nine performed detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Complete qualitative agreement was observed for Cryptosporidium spp. detection. For C. cayetanensis, overall qualitative agreement was high, although one false-positive and three false-negative results occurred among core samples. Detection of a low-positive educational sample varied substantially between laboratories, indicating reduced reproducibility near assay-specific limits of detection. This study shows that eNAT-preserved stool suspensions remained stable under ambient transport conditions. Retrospective laboratory data showed low-level year-round C. cayetanensis detection and a seasonal increase in Cryptosporidium spp. positivity during late summer and autumn. CONCLUSIONS: Routine molecular detection of C. cayetanensis demonstrated good overall interlaboratory agreement across decentralized diagnostic laboratories. However, reproducibility decreased for low-positive samples, highlighting the importance of assay validation, external quality assessment, and cautious interpretation of weak positive C. cayetanensis PCR results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361578
Primary Topic
Parasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Interlaboratory comparison of molecular detection of Cyclospora cayetanensis in routine diagnostic laboratories

Angelino T. Tromp, Fleur Koene, Theun de Groot, Rob Schuurman et al.
1 links
PLoS ONE
Parasitic Infections and Diagnostics
article

Interlaboratory comparison of molecular detection of Cyclospora cayetanensis in routine diagnostic laboratories

Angelino T. Tromp, Fleur Koene, Theun de Groot, Rob Schuurman, Guido J. H. Bastiaens, Jaco J. Verweij, Noortje M. van Maarseveen, Esmée Ruizendaal, Thomas J. Roodsant, Linda J. Wammes, Jacky Flipse, Els Wessels, Wouter Bekers, Jaap J. van Hellemond, Raymond Steen
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although molecular detection of Cyclospora cayetanensis is increasingly incorporated into multiplex gastrointestinal diagnostic workflows, dedicated external quality assessment (EQA) programmes for Cyclospora remain limited. We performed a nationwide interlaboratory comparison to evaluate routine molecular detection of C. cayetanensis across decentralized ISO15189-accredited laboratories in the Netherlands. METHODS: An anonymized 11-sample panel containing unpreserved stool specimens and eNAT-preserved stool suspensions was distributed to laboratories in the Netherlands (n = 8) and Curaçao (n = 1). Laboratories analysed samples using their routine diagnostic workflows. Workflow characteristics, DNA extraction procedures, molecular platforms, and interpretation criteria were collected by a structured questionnaire. Because detection of Cryptosporidium spp. is usually performed within the same workflow and present similar extraction challenges, Cryptosporidium-positive samples were included as internal workflow controls. Aggregated retrospective laboratory data were collected to explore surveillance feasibility and to gain insight in seasonality of C. cayetanensis and Cryptosporidium spp. RESULTS: Seven laboratories performed molecular detection of C. cayetanensis, while all nine performed detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Complete qualitative agreement was observed for Cryptosporidium spp. detection. For C. cayetanensis, overall qualitative agreement was high, although one false-positive and three false-negative results occurred among core samples. Detection of a low-positive educational sample varied substantially between laboratories, indicating reduced reproducibility near assay-specific limits of detection. This study shows that eNAT-preserved stool suspensions remained stable under ambient transport conditions. Retrospective laboratory data showed low-level year-round C. cayetanensis detection and a seasonal increase in Cryptosporidium spp. positivity during late summer and autumn. CONCLUSIONS: Routine molecular detection of C. cayetanensis demonstrated good overall interlaboratory agreement across decentralized diagnostic laboratories. However, reproducibility decreased for low-positive samples, highlighting the importance of assay validation, external quality assessment, and cautious interpretation of weak positive C. cayetanensis PCR results.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(10)
Leiden University (NL), Erasmus MC (NL), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Unilabs (Norway) (NO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (NL), Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis (NL), Rijnstate Hospital (NL), Unilabs (Switzerland) (CH), Unilabs (Portugal) (PT)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Parasitic Infections and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon