Table 2.
Comparison of molecular techniques for resistance detection
| QS | rtPASA | SISAR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical dependency | Low | Moderate | Low |
| Reliability | High | High | Very high |
| Sensitivity (Detection limit for resistance allele frequency) | Moderate (7.4%) | High (1.12%) | Can detect actual frequency |
| Zygosity detection | No | No | Yes |
| Cost per samplea | $2.0 | $1.5 | $1.5 |
| Time per 96 samplesb | 2 days | 2 days | 2 days |
| High throughput analysis | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Suggested usage in resistance monitoring | Primary | Secondary | Secondary or tertiary |
| Suggested no. of lice per analysis for resistance monitoring | 7~14 | 50~100 | 50~100 |
a
Costs include DNA extraction and PCR. The cost for QS and rtPASA is for analyzing a single population as a unit whereas the cost of SISAR for analyzing a single individual as a unit.
b
The time includes DNA extraction and PCR. The time for QS and rtPASA is for analyzing 90 populations plus 6 standard DNA templates whereas the time for SISAR for 96 individuals. Reproduced with permission from Lee et al. 2009. Copyright 2009 ACS Books (in press).