You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Miscellaneous
Letter
Stability of Chlamydia trachomatis RNA after long-term biobank storage
  1. Olivia Messina Rose1,
  2. David N Fredricks2,
  3. Olusegun O Soge3,
  4. Fouzia Farooq1,
  5. Gong Tang4,
  6. Roberta Ness5,
  7. Catherine L Haggerty1
  1. 1 Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
  3. 3 Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  4. 4 Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5 School of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Catherine L Haggerty, Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA; haggerty{at}pitt.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2019-054141

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Archived vaginal samples are frequently used in ancillary research projects, yet few studies have validated their use for nucleic acid amplification analysis after long-term storage. This study sought to examine the suitability of vaginal swab samples for Chlamydia trachomatis transcription-mediated amplification analysis after up to 20 years of biobank storage.

    Replication testing was conducted using a subset of vaginal swab samples originally obtained between May 1999 and June 2001 using …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Anna Maria Geretti

    • Contributors All authors have seen and approved the manuscript, have contributed significantly to the work and do not have conflicts of interest to report.

    • Funding 1R56AI139189-01, National Institutes of Health.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.