Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR primer-probe sets
The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are being used by cl...
Saved in:
Published in | Nature microbiology Vol. 5; no. 10; pp. 1299 - 1305 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Nature Publishing Group
01.10.2020
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are being used by clinical, research and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear whether results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to make independent evaluations of primer-probe sets used in four common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays. From our comparisons of RT-qPCR analytical efficiency and sensitivity, we show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 at 500 viral RNA copies per reaction. The exception for this is the RdRp-SARSr (Charité) confirmatory primer-probe set which has low sensitivity, probably due to a mismatch to circulating SARS-CoV-2 in the reverse primer. We did not find evidence for background amplification with pre-COVID-19 samples or recent SARS-CoV-2 evolution decreasing sensitivity. Our recommendation for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is to select an assay with high sensitivity and that is regionally used, to ease comparability between outcomes. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 CBFV, AFB, JRF, and NDG designed the study, NRC and EFF collected pre-COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs, CBFV, ALW, IMO, CCK, MEP, AC-M, MCM, AJM, JK, PL, AL-C, XJ, DJK, EEK, TM, MM, JEO, AP, JS, ES, TT, MT, MT, AV, O-EW, PW, YY, EBW, SL, RE, BG, PV, CO, JF, SB, SF, CSDC, AI, AIK, MLL, and NDG contributed to collection of clinical data, CBFV performed experiments, CBFV, AFB, and NDG analyzed the data and wrote the first draft. All authors read and approved the manuscript. Contributions |
ISSN: | 2058-5276 2058-5276 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41564-020-0761-6 |