AOAC SMPR 2015.011 Table 1. Method performance requirements Minimum performance Parameter requirement Standard Method Performance Requirements AMDL 2000 genomic equivalents/mL (SMPRs®) for Detection of Coxiella burnetii of Coxiella burnetii target DNA in the candidate method sample collection buffer Intended Use: Laboratory or field use by Department of Probability of detection at AMDL ≥0.95 Defense trained operators within sample collection buffer using Nine Mile RSA439 isolate, Clone 4 1 Applicability Probability of detection at AMDL ≥0.95 Specific detection ofCoxiella burnetii in collection buffers from in environmental matrix aerosol collection devices. Field-deployable assays are preferred. materials using Nine Mile RSA439 isolate, Clone 4 2 Analytical Technique System false-negative rate using ≤5% Molecular detection of nucleic acid. spiked environmental matrix materials 3 Definitions System false-positive rate using ≤5% Acceptable minimum detection level (AMDL).—Predetermined environmental matrix materials minimum level of an analyte, as specified by an expert committee, Inclusivity All inclusivity strains (Table 3) which must be detected by the candidate method at a specified must test positive at 2x the AMDLa probability of detection (POD). All exclusivity strains Coxiella burnetii.—Naturally obligate intracellular bacterial Exclusivity [Tables 4 and 5 (Part 2)] pathogen of the Legionellales family. must test negative a Exclusivity.—Study involving pure nontarget strains, which are at 10x the AMDL a potentially cross-reactive, that shall not be detected or enumerated 100% correct analyses are expected. All discrepancies are to be retested following the AOAC Guidelines for Validation of Biological Threat Agent by the tested method. Methods and/or Procedures [Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC Inclusivity.—Study involving pure target strains that shall be INTERNATIONAL (2012) 19th Ed., AOAC INTERNATIONAL, Rockville, MD, USA, Appendix I, http://www.eoma.aoac.org/app_i.pdf]. detected or enumerated by the alternative method. Maximum time-to-result.—Maximum time to complete an analysis starting from the test portion preparation to assay result. 6 Validation Guidance Probability of detection (POD).—Proportion of positive analytical outcomes for a qualitative method for a given matrix at AOAC INTERNATIONAL Methods Committee Guidelines for a specified analyte level or concentration with a ≥0.95 confidence Validation of Biological Threat Agent Methods and/or Procedures interval. [Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL (2012) System false-negative rate.—Proportion of test results that are 19th Ed., Appendix I]. negative contained within a population of known positives. Inclusivity and exclusivity panel members must be characterized System false-positive rate.—Proportion of test results that are positive contained within a population of known negatives. and documented to truly be the species and strains they are 4 Method Performance Requirements purported to be. See Table 1. 7 Maximum Time-to-Results 5 System Suitability Tests and/or Analytical Quality Control Within 4 h. The controls listed in Table 2 shall be embedded in assays as appropriate. Manufacturer must provide written justification if Approved by the AOAC Stakeholder Panel on Agent Detection controls are not embedded in the assay. Assays (SPADA). Final Version Date: September 1, 2015. Table 2. Controls Control Description Implementation Positive Designed to demonstrate an appropriate test response. The positive control should be included Single use per sample at a low but easily detectable concentration, and should monitor the performance of the entire (or sample set) run assay. The purpose of using a low concentration of positive control is to demonstrate that the assay sensitivity is performing at a previously determined level of sensitivity. Negative Designed to demonstrate that the assay itself does not produce a detection in the absence of Single use per sample the target organism. The purpose of this control is to rule out causes of false positives, such as (or sample set) run contamination in the assay or test. Inhibition Designed to specifically address the impact of a sample or sample matrix on the assay’s ability to Single use per sample run detect the target organism. © 2015 AOAC INTERNATIONAL Part 2: Environmental Panel Organisms Table 3. Inclusivity panel Phylogenetic group Isolate (example) [Note: Acceptable minimum identification level (AMIL) Group 1 Nine Mile RSA493 replaces AMDL when AMIL is specified in Table 1.] Nine Mile RSA439 This list is comprised of identified organisms from the environment. Group 2 Henzerling Inclusion of all environmental panel organisms is not a Group 3 Idaho Goat requirement if a method developer provides appropriate justification Group 4 K that the intended use of the assay permits the exclusion of specific Group 5 G panel organisms. Justification for exclusion of any environmental panel organism(s) must be documented and submitted. Group 6 Dugway Organisms and cell lines may be tested as isolated DNA, or as pools of isolated DNA. Isolated DNA may be combined into pools of up to 10 panel organisms, with each panel organism represented Table 4. Exclusivity panel (near-neighbor) at 10 times the AMDL, where possible. The combined DNA pools Species Strain are tested in the presence (at 2 times the AMDL) and absence of the target gene or gene fragment. If an unexpected result occurs, each Legionella pneumophila Philadelphia 1 of the individual environmental organisms from a failed pool must Legionella pneumophila Wadsworth 1 be individually retested at 10 times the AMDL with and without the Legionella pneumophila Sg6 target gene or gene fragment at 2 times the AMDL in the candidate Legionella longbeachae ATCC No. 33462 method DNA elution buffer. DNA in this list that already appear in the inclusivity or Rickettsiella spp. If obtainable exclusivity panel do not need to be tested again as part of the environmental factors panel. • Potential bacterial biothreat agents Bacillus anthracis Ames Yersinia pestis Colorado-92 Table 5. Environmental factors for validating biological threat agent detection assays Francisella tularensis subsp. tularensis Schu-S4 Burkholderia pseudomallei [Adapted from the Environmental Factors Panel approved by Burkholderia mallei SPADA on June 10, 2010.] Brucella melitensis The Environmental Factors Studies supplement the biological threat agent near-neighbor exclusivity testing panel. There are three • Cultivatable bacteria identified as being present in air soil parts to Environmental Factors Studies: Part 1—Environmental or water matrix samples; Part 2—Environmental organisms study; and Acinetobacter lwoffii Part 3—Potential interferants applicable to Department of Defense Agrobacterium tumefaciens applications (added in June 2015 for the Department of Defense Bacillus amyloliquefaciens project). Part 2 is not applicable to techniques that do not detect Bacillus cohnii nucleic acid. Bacillus psychrosaccharolyticus Bacillus benzoevorans Part 1: Environmental Matrix Samples— Bacillus megaterium Aerosol Environmental Matrixes Bacillus horikoshii Method developers shall obtain environmental matrix samples Bacillus macroides that are representative and consistent with the collection method Bacteroides fragilis that is anticipated to ultimately be used in the field. This includes Burkholderia cepacia considerations that may be encountered when the collection system Burkholderia gladoli is deployed operationally, such as collection medium, duration of Burkholderia stabilis collection, diversity of geographical areas that will be sampled, Burkholderia plantarii climatic/environmental conditions that may be encountered, and Chryseobacterium indologenes seasonal changes in the regions of deployment. Clostridium sardiniense Justifications for the selected conditions that were used to Clostridium perfringens generate the environmental matrix and limitations of the validation Deinococcus radiodurans based on those criteria must be documented. Delftia acidovorans Escherichia coli K12 • Method developers shall test the environmental matrix Fusobacterium nucleatum samples for interference using samples inoculated with Lactobacillus plantarum a target biological threat agent sufficient to achieve 95% Legionella pneumophilas probability of detection. Listeria monocytogenes • Cross-reactivity testing will include sufficient samples Moraxella nonliquefaciens and replicates to ensure each environmental condition is Mycobacterium smegmatis adequately represented. Neisseria lactamica © 2015 AOAC INTERNATIONAL Pseudomonas aeruginosa Felis catus (ATCC® CRL-8727™) cat Rhodobacter sphaeroides Homo sapiens (HeLa cell line ATCC® CCL-2™) human Riemerella anatipestifer Gallus gallus domesticus (chicken) Shewanella oneidensis Goat (added by SPADA on September 1, 2015) Staphylococcus aureus • Biological insecticides Stenotophomonas maltophilia Streptococcus pneumoniae Strains of B. thuringiensis present in commercially available Streptomyces coelicolor insecticides have been extensively used in hoaxes and are Synechocystis likely to be harvested in air collectors. For these reasons, it Vibrio cholerae should be used to assess the specificity of these threat assays. • DNA viruses Adenovirus vaccine B. thuringiensis subsp. israelensis Herpes simplex virus or Cytomegalovirus B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (whichever is available) B. thuringiensis subsp. morrisoni Orthopoxvirade Vaccinia Serenade (Fungicide) B. subtilis