Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
2.
Anal Bioanal Chem ; 413(29): 7195-7204, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482198

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Laboratories/organization & administration , RNA, Viral/analysis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Limit of Detection
3.
View (Beijing) ; 2(2): 20200082, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1411072

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a public health crisis and global panic. This infectious disease is caused by a novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR), which is an emerging nucleic acid amplification technology that allows absolute quantification of nucleic acids, plays an important role in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. In this review, we introduce the principle and advantages of dPCR, and review the applications of dPCR in the COVID-19 pandemic, including detection of low copy number viruses, measurement of the viral load, preparation of reference materials, monitoring of virus concentration in the environment, detection of viral mutations, and evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs. We also discuss the challenges of dPCR in clinical practice.

4.
View ; 2(2):e115, 2021.
Article in English | Wiley | ID: covidwho-1176315

ABSTRACT

In article number 20200082, Yong Guo and co-workers have shown the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by digital PCR.

5.
J Clin Microbiol ; 58(8)2020 Jul 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999206

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across the world and was characterized as a pandemic. To protect medical laboratory personnel from infection, most laboratories inactivate the virus causing COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in clinical samples before testing. However, the effect of inactivation on the detection results remains unknown. Here, we used a digital PCR assay to determine the absolute SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy number in 63 nasopharyngeal swab samples and assess the effect of inactivation methods on viral RNA copy number. Viral inactivation was performed by three different methods: (i) incubation with the TRIzol LS reagent for 10 min at room temperature, (ii) heating in a water bath at 56°C for 30 min, and (iii) high-temperature treatment, including autoclaving at 121°C for 20 min, boiling at 100°C for 20 min, and heating at 80°C for 20 min. Compared to the amount of RNA in the original sample, TRIzol treatment destroyed 47.54% of the nucleocapsid protein (N) gene and 39.85% of open reading frame (ORF) 1ab. For samples treated at 56°C for 30 min, the copy number of the N gene and ORF 1ab was reduced by 48.55% and 56.40%, respectively. The viral RNA copy number dropped by 50 to 66% after heating at 80°C for 20 min. Nearly no viral RNA was detected after autoclaving at 121°C or boiling at 100°C for 20 min. These results indicate that inactivation reduced the quantity of detectable viral RNA and may cause false-negative results, especially in weakly positive cases. Thus, use of the TRIzol reagent rather than heat inactivation is recommended for sample inactivation, as the TRIzol reagent had the least effect on the RNA copy number among the tested methods.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Betacoronavirus/radiation effects , Disinfection/methods , RNA, Viral/analysis , Specimen Handling/methods , Virus Inactivation/drug effects , Virus Inactivation/radiation effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Disinfectants , Female , Gene Dosage , Hot Temperature , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Polymerase Chain Reaction , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
6.
Clin Chim Acta ; 511: 143-148, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-844315

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) has played a vital role in the diagnosis of COVID-19, but the rates of false negatives is not ideal in dealing with this highly infectious virus. It is thus necessary to systematically evaluate the clinical performance of the single-, dual-, triple-target detection kits to guide the clinical diagnosis of this disease. METHODS: A series of reference materials calibrated by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and 57 clinical samples were used to evaluate the clinical performance of six single-, dual-, triple-target SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection kits based on RT-qPCR. RESULTS: The dual-target kits, kit B and kit C had the highest and the lowest detection sensitivity, which was 125 copies/mL and 4000 copies/mL, respectively. Among the 57 clinical samples from patients with COVID-19, 47 were tested positive by the kit B, while 35, 29, 28, 30, and 29 were found positive by the kits A, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The number of targets in a detection kit is not a key factor affecting sensitivity, while the amount of sample loading may influence the performance of a detection kit. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a guide when choosing or developing a nucleic acid detection kit for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Also, the absolute-quantification feature and high-sensitivity performance of ddPCR, suggesting that it can be used to review clinically suspected samples.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/genetics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reverse Transcription/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Young Adult
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(15): 793-798, 2020 07 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-17963

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a public health emergency. The widely used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method has limitations for clinical diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: A total of 323 samples from 76 COVID-19-confirmed patients were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-PCR based 2 target genes (ORF1ab and N). Nasal swabs, throat swabs, sputum, blood, and urine were collected. Clinical and imaging data were obtained for clinical staging. RESULTS: In 95 samples that tested positive by both methods, the cycle threshold (Ct) of RT-PCR was highly correlated with the copy number of ddPCR (ORF1ab gene, R2 = 0.83; N gene, R2 = 0.87). Four (4/161) negative and 41 (41/67) single-gene positive samples tested by RT-PCR were positive according to ddPCR with viral loads ranging from 11.1 to 123.2 copies/test. The viral load of respiratory samples was then compared and the average viral load in sputum (17 429 ±â€…6920 copies/test) was found to be significantly higher than in throat swabs (2552 ±â€…1965 copies/test, P < .001) and nasal swabs (651 ±â€…501 copies/test, P < .001). Furthermore, the viral loads in the early and progressive stages were significantly higher than that in the recovery stage (46 800 ±â€…17 272 vs 1252 ±â€…1027, P < .001) analyzed by sputum samples. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative monitoring of viral load in lower respiratory tract samples helps to evaluate disease progression, especially in cases of low viral load.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Adult , COVID-19 , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Respiratory System/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods , Sputum/virology , Viral Load/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL