ABSTRACT
The outbreak of the new human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (also known as 2019-nCoV) continues to increase globally. The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the most used technique in virus detection. However, possible false-negative and false-positive results produce misleading consequences, making it necessary to improve existing methods. Here, we developed a multiplex rRT-PCR diagnostic method, which targets two viral genes (RdRP and E) and one human gene (RP) simultaneously. The reaction was tested by using pseudoviral RNA and human target mRNA sequences as a template. Also, the protocol was validated by using 14 clinical SARS-CoV-2 positive samples. The results are in good agreement with the CDC authorized Cepheid`s Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic system (100%). Unlike single gene targeting strategies, the current method provides the amplification of two viral regions in the same PCR reaction. Therefore, an accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assay was provided, which allows testing of 91 samples in 96-well plates in per run. Thanks to this strategy, fast, reliable, and easy-to-use rRT-PCR method is obtained to diagnose SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , Humans , Limit of Detection , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
The current quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) assay recommended for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing in the United States requires analysis of 3 genomic targets per sample: 2 viral and 1 host. To simplify testing and reduce the volume of required reagents, we devised a multiplex RT-qPCR assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 in a single reaction. We used existing N1, N2, and RP primer and probe sets by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but substituted fluorophores to allow multiplexing of the assay. The cycle threshold (Ct) values of our multiplex RT-qPCR were comparable to those obtained by the single assay adapted for research purposes. Low copy numbers (≥500 copies/reaction) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA were consistently detected by the multiplex RT-qPCR. Our novel multiplex RT-qPCR improves upon current single diagnostics by saving reagents, costs, time, and labor.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/virology , DNA Primers/standards , HEK293 Cells , Humans , Limit of Detection , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , United StatesABSTRACT
Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a sensitive and reproducible technology widely used for quantitation of several viruses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2019-nCoV CDC ddPCR Triplex Probe Assay (BioRad) performance, comparing the direct quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swab with the procedure applied to the extracted RNA. Moreover, two widely used swab types were compared (UTM 3 mL and ESwab 1 mL, COPAN). A total of 50 nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 25 UTM 3 mL and n = 25 ESwab 1 mL) from SARS-CoV-2 patients, collected during the pandemic at IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital (Veneto Region, North-East Italy), were used for our purpose. After heat inactivation, an aliquot of swab medium was used for the direct quantitation. Then, we compared the direct method with the quantitation performed on the RNA purified from nasopharyngeal swab by automated extraction. We observed that the direct approach achieved generally equal RNA copies compared to the extracted RNA. The results with the direct quantitation were more accurate on ESwab with a sensitivity of 93.33% [95% CI, 68.05 to 99.83] and specificity of 100.00% for both N1 and N2. On the other hand, on UTM we observed a higher rate of discordant results for N1 and N2. The human internal amplification control (RPP30) showed 100% of both sensitivity and specificity independent of swabs and approaches. In conclusion, we described a direct quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab. Our approach resulted in an efficient quantitation, without automated RNA extraction and purification. However, special care needs to be taken on the potential bias due to the conservation of samples and to the heating treatment, as we used thawed and heat inactivated material. Further studies on a larger cohort of samples are warranted to evaluate the clinical value of this direct approach.