Back

A comparative evaluation of dye-based and probe-based RT-qPCR assay for the screening of SARS-CoV-2 using individual and pooled-sample testing.

Verdugo, C.; Plaza, A.; Acosta-Jamett, G.; Castro, N.; Gutierrez, J.; Hernandez, C.; Lopez-Joven, C.; Loncoman, C.; Navarrete, C.; Ramirez-Reveco, A.; Romero, A.; Silva, A.; Vega, M.; Verdugo, C.; Vergara, J.

2020-06-03 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.05.30.20117721 medRxiv
Show abstract

Effective interventions are mandatory to control the transmission and spread of SARS-CoV-2, a highly contagious virus causing devastating effects worldwide. Cost-effective approaches are pivotal tools required to increase the detection rates and escalate further in massive surveillance programs, especially in countries with limited resources that most of the efforts have focused on symptomatic cases only. Here, we compared the performance of the RT-qPCR using an intercalating dye with the probe-based assay. Then, we tested and compared these two RT-qPCR chemistries in different pooling systems: after RNA extraction (post-RNA extraction) and before RNA extraction (pre-RNA extraction) optimizing by pool size and template volume. We evaluated these approaches in 610 clinical samples. Our results show that the dye-based technique has a high analytical sensitivity similar to the probe-based detection assay used worldwide. Further, this assay may also be applicable in testing by pool systems post-RNA extraction up to 20 samples. However, the most efficient system for massive surveillance, the pre-RNA extraction pooling approach, was obtained with the probe-based assay in test up to 10 samples adding 13.5 {micro}L of RNA template. The low cost and the potential use in pre-RNA extraction pool systems, place of this assays as a valuable resource for scalable sampling to larger populations. Implementing a pool system for population sampling results in an important savings of laboratory resources and time, which are two key factors during an epidemic outbreak. Using the pooling approaches evaluated here, we are confident that it can be used as a valid alternative assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in human samples.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.5%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.6%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.8%
4
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
5
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
6
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
9
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
10
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
11
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
13
Virus Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
14
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
16
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
17
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
20
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
25
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
29
Water Research
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
30
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%