Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Clin Chim Acta. 2009 Aug;406(1-2):143-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2009.06.015. Epub 2009 Jun 21.

Comparison of performance of three commercial platforms for warfarin sensitivity genotyping.

Author information

Department of Pathology, Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, 5481 S. Maryland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, United States.



We performed a 3-way comparison on the Osmetech eSensor, AutoGenomics INFINITI, and a real-time PCR method (Paragonx reagents/Stratagene RT-PCR platform) for their FDA-cleared warfarin panels, and additional polymorphisms (CYP2C9*5, *6, and 11 and extended VKORC1 panels) where available.


One hundred de-identified DNA samples were used in this IRB-approved study. Accuracy was determined by comparison of genotyping results across three platforms. Any discrepancy was resolved by bi-directional sequencing. The CYP4F2 on Osmetech was validated by bi-directional sequencing.


Accuracies for CYP2C9*2 and *3 were 100% for all 3 platforms. VKORC1 3673 genotyping accuracies were 100% on eSensor and 97% on Infiniti. CYP2C9*5, *6 and *11 showed 100% concordance between eSensor and Infiniti. VKORC1 6484 and 9041 variants compared between ParagonDx and Infiniti analyzer were 100% (6484) and 99% (9041) concordant. CYP4F2 was 100% concordant with sequencing results. The time required to generate the results from automated DNA extraction-to-result was approximately 8h on Infiniti, and 4h on eSensor and ParagonDx, respectively.


Overall, we observed excellent CYP2C9*2 and *3 genotyping accuracy for all three platforms. For VKORC1 3673 genotyping, eSensor demonstrated a slightly higher accuracy than the Infiniti, and CYP4F2 on Osmetech was 100% accurate.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center