ABSTRACT
@#Abstract: Objective To analyze the nucleic acid detection results of severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and compare with the detection results of real-time fluorescence quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR), so as to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of detection, and to provide data support for optimizing the nucleic acid detection scheme of SARS-CoV-2. Methods According to the SARS-CoV-2 specific primer probe published by the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a ddPCR detection method for SARS-CoV-2 was designed. One sample was selected for sensitivity test after gradient dilution; six respiratory virus nucleic acid positive samples including seasonal H3N2 influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were selected for specificity test; five SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were selected for repeatability test; in addition, 30 positive and 20 negative SARS-CoV-2 samples were selected for multiple clinical samples testing, and the results were analyzed and compared with those of qRT-PCR. Results The ddPCR method can specifically detect SARS-CoV-2, and directly obtain the original copy number of the sample target gene to achieve accurate quantification; the sensitivity test of gradient dilution positive samples showed that qRT-PCR detected target genes in part of the 10-5 dilution of samples, and no target genes were detected in 10-6 dilution, while ddPCR detected all target genes in both 10-5 and 10-6 dilution of samples. The detection limit of ddPCR was two orders of magnitude higher than that of qRT-PCR, and the sensitivity was higher than that of qRT-PCR; in the comparison of the repeatability test results of the two methods, the coefficient of variation of ddPCR was 1.266%-11.814%, lower than 1.729%-26.174% of qRT PCR, and the repeatability was higher than qRT-PCR; among 50 clinical samples, 30 positive samples of confirmed cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) were detected by both methods, SARS-CoV-2 was successfully detected by both methods, and 20 negative samples of COVID-19 were detected by both methods, and the results were negative, with a coincidence rate of 100.00% (50/50). Conclusion The ddPCR method can accurately quantify SARS-CoV-2 with strong specificity, and its sensitivity and repeatability are higher than those of qRT-PCR, but it also has certain detection limitations and is more suitable for the detection of low load samples. In the actual detection, the two methods can be reasonably combined to improve the detection accuracy.
ABSTRACT
Phytochemical investigation on the leaves of Pileostegia viburnoides Hook.f.et Thoms led to the isolation of twenty-five compounds, and their structures were identified as n-dotriacontane (1), taraxeryl acetate (2), friedelin (3), epifriedelinol (4), canophyllal (5), stigmast-4-en-3-one (6), stigmasterol (7), (24R)-5A-stigmastane-3,6-dione (8), ursolic acid (9), pomolic acid (10), umbelliferone (11), 4-epifriedelin (12), n-octatriacontanol (13), β-amyrin (14), α-amyrin (15), taraxerol (16), nonadecanol (17), friedelane (18), arachic acid (19), protocatechuic acid (20), n-pentatriacontanol (21), hexadecanoic acid (22), vincosamide (23), daucosterol (24), and skimming (25), respectively. To our best knowledge, compounds 1, 2, 12, 13, 17 - 19 and 21-23 were new within Saxifragaceae family. Compounds 15, 16, and 20 were produced from this genus for the first time. Compounds 4, 14 and 25 were first obtained from species P. viburnoides and compounds 3, 5 - 11, and 24 were achieved from the leaves of P. viburnoides for the first time. Furthermore, the anti-neuroinflammatory activity of these isolates was evaluated.