Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays
Chantal BF Vogels,
Anderson F Brito,
Anne L. Wyllie,
Joseph R Fauver,
Isabel M. Ott,
Chaney C Kalinich,
Mary E. Petrone,
M. Catherine Muenker,
Adam J. Moore,
Daniel J. Kim,
Ji Eun Oh,
Nagarjuna R Cheemarla,
Charles Dela Cruz,
Ellen F. Foxman,
Nathan D. Grubaugh
Posted 01 Apr 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.30.20048108
Posted 01 Apr 2020
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 polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays are being used by clinical, research, and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to evaluate the primer-probe sets used in four common diagnostic assays available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. To facilitate this effort, we generated RNA transcripts to be used as assay standards and distributed them to other laboratories for internal validation. We then used these (1) RNA transcript standards, (2) full-length SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and (3) pre-COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs, and (4) clinical samples from COVID-19 patients to determine analytical efficiency and sensitivity of the qRT-PCR primer-probe sets. We show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2, but there are clear differences in the ability to differentiate between true negatives and positives with low amounts of virus. We found that several primer-probe sets cross-react with SARS-CoV-2-negative nasopharyngeal swabs. However, background cross-reactivity by the 2019-nCoV_N2 set issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not interfere with outcomes of the combined "N1" and "N2" assay when testing COVID-19 clinical samples. Our findings characterize the limitations of currently used primer-probe sets and can assist other laboratories in selecting appropriate assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
- Downloaded 26,775 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 385
- In infectious diseases: 143
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 2,287
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 8,560
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!