Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and N gene and its application in antigen testing kits evaluation.

More than forty antigen testing kits have been approved to response the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and its variant strains. However, the approved antigen testing kits are not capable of quantitative detection. Here, we successfully developed a lateral flow immunoassay based on colloidal gold nanoparticles (CGNP-based LFIA) for nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2 quantitative detection. Delta strain (NMDC60042793) of SARS-CoV-2 have been cultured and analyzed by our developed digital PCR and LFIA methods to explore the relationship between N protein amount and N gene level. It indicated that the linear relationship (y = 47 ×) between N protein molecule number and N gene copy number exhibited very well (R2 = 0.995), the virus titers and N protein amount can be roughly estimated according to nucleic acid testing. Additionally, detection limits (LODs) of nine approved antigen testing kits also have been evaluated according to the Guidelines for the registration review of 2019-nCoV antigen testing reagents. Only three antigen testing kits had LODs as stated in the instructions, the LODs of Kits have been converted into the N gene and N protein levels, according to the established relationships among virus titer vers. N gene and antigen. Results demonstrated that the sensitivity of nucleic acid testing is at least 1835 times higher than that of antigen testing. We expect that the relationship investigation and testing kits evaluation have the important directive significance to precise epidemic prevention.

Accurate quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by isotope dilution mass spectrometry and providing a correction of reverse transcription efficiency in droplet digital PCR.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 505 million confirmed cases, including over 6 million deaths. Reference materials (RMs) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA played a crucial role in performance evaluation and quality control of testing laboratories. As the potential primary characterization method of RMs, reverse transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) measures the copy number of RNA, but the accuracy of reverse transcription (RT) efficiency has yet to be confirmed. This study established a method of enzymatic digestion followed by isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS), which does not require an RT reaction, to quantify in vitro-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA. RNA was digested to nucleotide monophosphate (NMP) within 15 min and analyzed by IDMS within 5 min. The consistency among the results of four different NMPs demonstrated the reliability of the proposed method. Compared to IDMS, the quantitative result of RT-dPCR turned out to be about 10% lower, possibly attributed to the incompleteness of the reverse transcription process. Therefore, the proposed approach could be valuable and reliable for quantifying RNA molecules and evaluating the RT efficiency of RT-based methods.

Evaluation of factors contributing to variability of qualitative and quantitative proficiency testing for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection.

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to unprecedented social and economic disruption. Many nucleic acid testing (NAT) laboratories in China have been established to control the epidemic better. This proficiency testing (PT) aims to evaluate the participants' performance in qualitative and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 NAT and to explore the factors that contribute to differences in detection capabilities. Two different concentrations of RNA samples (A, B) were used for quantitative PT. Pseudovirus samples D, E (different concentrations) and negative sample (F) were used for qualitative PT. 50 data sets were reported for qualitative PT, of which 74.00% were entirely correct for all samples. Forty-two laboratories participated in the quantitative PT. 37 submitted all gene results, of which only 56.76% were satisfactory. For qualitative detection, it is suggested that laboratories should strengthen personnel training, select qualified detection kits, and reduce cross-contamination to improve detection accuracy. For quantitative detection, the results of the reverse transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) method were more comparable and reliable than those of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). The copy number concentration of ORF1ab and N in samples A and B scattered in 85, 223, 50, and 106 folds, respectively. The differences in the quantitative result of RT-qPCR was mainly caused by the non-standard use of reference materials and the lack of personnel operating skills. Comparing the satisfaction of participants participating in both quantitative and qualitative proficiency testing, 95.65% of the laboratories with satisfactory quantitative results also judged the qualitative results correctly, while 85.71% of the laboratories with unsatisfactory quantitative results were also unsatisfied with their qualitative judgments. Therefore, the quantitative ability is the basis of qualitative judgment. Overall, participants from hospitals reported more satisfactory results than those from enterprises and universities. Therefore, surveillance, daily qualitiy control and standardized operating procedures should be strengthened to improve the capability of SARS-CoV-2 NAT.

Interlaboratory assessment of quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription digital PCR.

The pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused severe harm to the health of people all around the world. Molecular detection of the pathogen, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), played a crucial role in the control of the disease. Reverse transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) has been developed and used in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA as an absolute quantification method. Here, an interlaboratory assessment of quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was organized by the National Institute of Metrology, China (NIMC), using in vitro transcribed RNA samples, among ten laboratories on six different dPCR platforms. Copy number concentrations of three genes of SARS-CoV-2 were measured by all participants. Consistent results were obtained with dispersion within 2.2-fold and CV% below 23% among different dPCR platforms and laboratories, and Z' scores of all the reported results being satisfactory. Possible reasons for the dispersion included PCR assays, partition volume, and reverse transcription conditions. This study demonstrated the comparability and applicability of RT-dPCR method for quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and showed the capability of the participating laboratories at SARS-CoV-2 test by RT-dPCR platform.

Quantitative analysis of RNA by HPLC and evaluation of RT-dPCR for coronavirus RNA quantification.

Nucleic acid detection and quantification have been known to be important at various fields, from genetically modified organisms and gene expression to virus detection. For DNA molecules, digital PCR has been developed as an absolute quantification method which is not dependent on external calibrators. While when it comes to RNA molecules, reverse transcription (RT) step must be taken before PCR amplification to obtain cDNA. With different kinds of reverse transcriptase (RTase) and RT reaction conditions being used in laboratory assays, the efficiency of RT process differs a lot which led variety in quantification results of RNA molecules. In this study, we developed HPLC method combined with enzymatic digestion of RNA to nucleotides for quantification of RNA without RT process. This method was metrologically traceable to four nuceloside monophosphate (NMP) Certification Reference Materials of National Institute of Metrology, China (NIMC) for insurance of accuracy. The established method was used to evaluate the reverse transcription digital polymerase chain reaction (RT-dPCR) of three target genes of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) RNA, including open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab), nucleocapsid protein (N) and envelope protein (E) gene. Three available RT kits had been evaluated and disparities were observed for the RT efficiency varied from 9% to 182%. It is thus demonstrated that HPLC combined with enzymatic digestion could be a useful method to quantify RNA molecules and evaluate RT efficiency. It is suggested that RT process should be optimized and identified in RNA quantification assays.

Highly accurate and sensitive diagnostic detection of SARS-CoV-2 by digital PCR.

The outbreak of COVID-19 caused by a novel Coronavirus (termed SARS-CoV-2) has spread to over 210 countries around the world. Currently, reverse transcription quantitative qPCR (RT-qPCR) is used as the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. However, the sensitivity of RT-qPCR assays of pharyngeal swab samples are reported to vary from 30% to 60%. More accurate and sensitive methods are urgently needed to support the quality assurance of the RT-qPCR or as an alternative diagnostic approach. A reverse transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) method was established and evaluated. To explore the feasibility of RT-dPCR in diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2, a total of 196 clinical pharyngeal swab samples from 103 suspected patients, 77 close contacts and 16 supposed convalescents were analyzed by RT-qPCR and then measured by the proposed RT-dPCR. For the 103 fever suspected patients, 19 (19/25) negative and 42 (42/49) equivocal tested by RT-qPCR were positive according to RT-dPCR. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection was significantly improved from 28.2% by RT-qPCR to 87.4% by RT-dPCR. For 29 close contacts (confirmed by additional sample and clinical follow up), 16 (16/17) equivocal and 1 negative tested by RT-qPCR were positive according to RT-dPCR, which is implying that the RT-qPCR is missing a lot of asymptomatic patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of RT-dPCR were 91%, 100% and 93%, respectively. RT-dPCR is highly accurate method and suitable for detection of pharyngeal swab samples from COVID-19 suspected patients and patients under isolation and observation who may not be exhibiting clinical symptoms.