TABLE 4.

Performance of tetraplex real-time PCR^a

Source of DNA	No. of samples	Previous detectionb	No. detected by:
			Duplex real-time PCRc			Tetraplex real-time PCR
			E. histolytica	E. dispar	Negative	E. histolytica	E. dispar	E. moshkovskii	E. bangladeshi	Negative
Culture (n = 27)	11	E. histolytica	11	0	0	11	0	0	0	0
	9	E. dispar	0	9	0	0	9	0	0	0
	3	E. moshkovskii	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0
	1	E. bangladeshi	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
	3	Negative	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	3
Stool (n = 46)	12	E. histolytica	12	0	0	12	0	0	0	0
	16	E. dispar	0	16	0	0	16	3d	0	0
	1	E. moshkovskii	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
	17	Negative	0	0	17	3	0	0	0	14
LA (n = 41)	38	E. histolytica	38	0	0	38	0	0	0	0
	3	Negative	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	3

^aThe performance of the tetraplex real-time PCR was compared with that of an existing duplex real-time PCR for E. histolytica and E. dispar in clinical samples. LA, liver abscess (aspirate).

^bPrevious diagnosis was based on a combination of different tests such as culture (and zymodeme), conventional and nested PCR, antigen detection E. histolytica II ELISA (TechLab), and duplex real-time PCR. “0” indicates a negative test result. Negative, previously negative for E. histolytica and E. dispar species.

^cData were determined by the use of a previously described existing duplex real-time PCR (46).

^dTetraplex real-time PCR detected these as mixed infections of E. dispar and E. moshkovskii.