Evaluating the efficacy of RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 direct approaches in comparison to RNA extraction
Posted 10 Jun 2020
bioRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.10.144196 (published DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.015)
Posted 10 Jun 2020
SARS-CoV-2 genetic identification is based on viral RNA extraction prior to RT-qPCR assay, however recent studies support the elimination of the extraction step. Herein, we assessed the RNA extraction necessity, by comparing RT-qPCR efficacy in several direct approaches vs. the gold standard RNA extraction, in detection of SARS-CoV-2 from laboratory samples as well as clinical Oro-nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 swabs. Our findings show advantage for the extraction procedure, however a direct no-buffer approach might be an alternative, since it identified up to 70% of positive clinical specimens. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.
- Downloaded 442 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 53,910
- In microbiology: 3,536
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 50,554
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 41,326
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!