Article

Vaginal swab specimen processing methods influence performance of rapid semen detection tests: A cautionary tale

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Contraception (Impact Factor: 2.93). 09/2010; 82(3):291-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Detection of semen biomarkers in vaginal fluid can be used to assess women's recent exposure to semen. Quantitative tests for detection of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) perform well, but are expensive and require specialized equipment. We assessed two rapid immunochromatographic strip tests for identification of semen in vaginal swabs.
We tested 581 vaginal swabs collected from 492 women. Vaginal secretions were eluted into saline, and PSA was measured using the quantitative IMx (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) assay. Specimens were also tested using the ABAcard p30 test (Abacus Diagnostics, West Hills, CA, USA) for detection of PSA and RSID-Semen test (Independent Forensics, Hillside, IL, USA) for detection of semenogelin (Sg).
Vaginal swab extraction using saline was compatible with direct assessment of vaginal swab eluates using ABAcard for PSA detection, but not for Sg detection using RSID. The rapid PSA test detected 91% of specimens containing semen compared to 74% by the rapid Sg test.
Investigators are urged to optimize vaginal swab specimen preparation methods for performance of RSID or other tests to detect semen components other than PSA. Previously described methods for PSA testing are not uniformly applicable to other tests.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Markus J Steiner, Aug 19, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
305 Views
  • Source
    • "Biomarkers for this purpose have been based on either proteins in the seminal fluid or Ychromosome-specific genes. The area of forensics has also used various Y-specific short tandem repeats (Y-STRs) of genomic DNA to identify semen exposure [2], while clinical studies to determine semen exposure in the vagina have employed seminal proteins such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) [3] [4] or semenogelin [5] [6]. The goals of these types of determinations are varied. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developing an objective, reliable method to determine semen exposure in cervicovaginal fluids is important for accurately studying the efficacy of vaginal microbicides and contraceptives. Y-chromosome biomarkers offer better stability, sensitivity, and specificity than protein biomarkers. TSPY4 belongs to the TSPY (testis-specific protein Y-encoded) family of homologous genes on the Y-chromosome. Using a multiplex PCR amplifying TSPY4, amelogenin, and Sex-determining region in the Y chromosome (SRY), our objective was to determine whether a gene in the TSPY family was a more sensitive marker of semen exposure in cervicovaginal fluids than SRY.
    Contraception 12/2012; 88(3). DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.11.022 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is an urgent need to improve our understanding of the mucosal immuno-pathogenesis of HIV acquisition in the female genital tract, particularly in high-risk women such as female sex workers (FSWs). Cervical biopsy samples offer technical advantages over cytobrush sampling, but there are concerns that this might increase HIV acquisition, particularly if healing is slow and/or women do not abstain from sex during healing. Cervical biopsy samples and cervico-vaginal swabs for co-infection diagnostics, prostate specific antigen (PSA) and immune studies were collected from 59 women, including HIV seropositive and HIV-exposed seronegative (HESN) FSWs as well as lower risk women from Nairobi, Kenya. A clinical-demographic questionnaire was administered and women were instructed to avoid sexual intercourse, douching and the insertion of tampons for 14 days. All participants underwent a repeat exam to assess healing within the 14 days, and had HIV diagnostics at six months. Cervical sampling was well tolerated, and 82% of participants had healed macroscopically by 5 days. Both self-report and PSA screening suggested high levels of compliance with pre- and post-procedure abstinence. Delayed healing was associated with vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and HESN status. At six-month follow up all low-risk and HESN participants remained HIV seronegative. Cervical biopsy sampling is a safe and well-tolerated method to obtain cervical biopsies in this context, particularly if participants with VVC are excluded. As healing could be delayed up to 11 days, it is important to support (both financially and with rigorous counseling) a period of post-procedure abstinence to minimize HIV risk.
    PLoS ONE 10/2012; 7(10):e47570. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0047570 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a biomarker of recent semen exposure. There is currently only limited information on whether topical vaginal products affect PSA assays. We investigated this question using various dilutions of several vaginal products (lubricants and spermicides) and the Abacus ABAcard for PSA detection. STUDY DESIGN: Pooled semen controls and various dilutions of nonoxynol-9 (N9), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), Replens, Gynol 2, K-Y jelly, Astroglide, Surgilube, combined with pooled semen dilutions, were tested for PSA using the Abacus ABAcard. RESULTS: N9 (2% with saline) and CMC did not appear to affect the results of testing with the ABAcard, but not all semen dilutions were tested. The other products (including Replens and Gynol, which is 2% N9 with propylene glycol, K-Y, Astroglide and Surgilube) at some of the dilutions tested either affected or gave invalid results with PSA testing using the ABAcard. Both Gynol 2 and K-Y at 1:10 dilution gave false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Some vaginal products affect PSA results obtained by using the semiquantitative ABAcard. In vivo confirmation is necessary to further optimize PSA detection when topical vaginal products are present.
    Contraception 12/2012; 88(3). DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.034 · 2.93 Impact Factor
Show more