To batch or not to batch? linkseq real-time PCR vs. SSO-luminex, a comparison of high throughput HLA typing methods

Abstract

Aim For high-throughput histocompatibility applications such as HLA typing of transplant candidates, conventional wisdom suggests SSO with Luminex® provides a fair balance of productivity, turnaround time (TAT) and cost as long as the laboratory can wait to receive sufficient samples to batch them together in one run. A recent, competitive alternative is Linkage Biosciences’ LinkSēq™ HLA typing using real-time PCR. This technology is gaining in popularity and acceptance because of its rapid protocol, far fewer manual steps than either SSO or SSP techniques, intermediate resolution, and fully automated analysis. The goal of this study was to directly compare high throughput performance between Linkage’s LinkSēq real-time PCR technology and One Lambda’s LabType® SSO-Luminex method. Methods 14 samples were typed by one technologist at nine loci: HLA-A, B, C, DRB1, DRB345, DQA1, and DQB1 using both LinkSēq and LabType. Total TAT was measured starting at initial setup and ending at the final HLA assignment for each method. Results LinkSēq was 97 min faster (4 h and 2 min) compared to LabType (5 h and 39 min), with less hands-on time and less analysis time. LinkSēq’s analysis software, SureTyper, generated quick and complete data for each sample and also resolved an ambiguity that appeared with one LabType assignment. Conclusion LinkSēq was faster and required less user intervention compared to LabType, enabling greater laboratory staff productivity. Because LinkSēq doesn’t require batch processing, it is equally efficient running one or 14 samples and thus can deliver on-demand service and the flexibility to add urgent testing as needed.