Table 3. Results of the blind testing of single and mixed infections of pospiviroids in plant samples, showing a comparison of three separate methods for setting thresholds for positivity.
Assays of the Luminex MagPlex-TAG pospiviroid arraya,b,c | |||||||||||
Samples | CSVd | CEVd | CLVd | IrVd-1 | PCFVd | PSTVd | TASVd | TCDVd | TPMVd | PospUni | PlantIC |
CSVd | 415** | 55 | 77 | 264 | 161 | 100 | 623 | 247 | 108 | 1001 | 10057*** |
CEVd +TCDVd | 172 | 42541*** | 186 | 390 | 526 | 171 | 2038 | 6236*** | 380 | 52636*** | 25679*** |
CLVd +TCDVd | 158 | 132 | 2328** | 1013 | 1081 | 142 | 4707* | 578** | 680 | 12640*** | 58345*** |
IrVd-1+ PSTVd+TCDVd | 133 | 121 | 187 | 28821*** | 427 | 489** | 1783 | 423** | 409 | 24079*** | 14937*** |
PCFVd | 88 | 61 | 245 | 562 | 2425** | 150 | 3311* | 172 | 340 | 2372** | 40987*** |
PSTVd | 193 | 93 | 198 | 287 | 467 | 7794*** | 1625 | 288 | 191 | 16183*** | 23642*** |
TASVd | 177 | 123 | 391 | 520 | 476 | 209 | 22959*** | 172 | 239 | 21317*** | 23596*** |
TCDVd | 109 | 62 | 216 | 457 | 404 | 97 | 2736 | 445** | 342 | 2970** | 29558*** |
TPMVd+PSTVd | 149 | 85 | 180 | 409 | 339 | 636** | 1366 | 87 | 7759*** | 17403*** | 8101*** |
Healthy tomato | 143 | 112 | 243 | 668 | 687 | 155 | 2965 | 207 | 370 | 845 | 44083*** |
Healthy tomato | 111 | 159 | 349 | 792 | 879 | 76 | 5250* | 206 | 409 | 903 | 61464*** |
No template control | 69 | 48 | 37 | 168 | 106 | 65 | 80 | 49 | 67 | 23 | 26 |
a Mean median fluorescence intensity (MFI) values are presented for each assay of the array.
b Acronyms refer to assays of the multiplexed array specific for: CSVd - Chrysanthemum stunt viroid; CEVd - Citrus exocortis viroid; CLVd - Columnea latent viroid; IrVd-1 - Iresine viroid 1; PCFVd - Pepper chat fruit viroid; PSTVd - Potato spindle tuber viroid; TASVd - Tomato apical stunt viroid; TCDVd - Tomato chlorotic dwarf viroid; TPMVd - Tomato planta macho viroid; PospUni - pospiviroid universal assay; PlantIC - plant internal control assay.
c Asterisks indicate values that exceed the threshold for positivity using one or more of the three threshold setting methods compared in this analysis. Method 1 utilizes the novel, non-parametric data-driven threshold setting method described in this study. Method 2 utilizes the arbitrary threshold cut-off set at the value of the mean MFI plus two-fold standard deviation of healthy (uninfected) control samples. Method 3 utilizes the arbitrary threshold cut-off set at the value of the two times the mean MFI of healthy (uninfected) control samples, calculated separately for each assay of the array. Values with three asterisks denote positive samples correctly identified using all threshold-setting methods (Methods 1, 2 and 3). Values with two asterisks denote positive samples correctly identified using Methods 1 and 3 only (and thereby denote false negative samples using Method 2). Values with one asterisk denote false positive samples identified using Method 2.