Back

Overhauling a faulty control in the CDC-recommended SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test

Dekker, R. J.; Ensink, W. A.; van Leeuwen, S.; Rauwerda, H.; Breit, T. M.

2020-06-13 microbiology
10.1101/2020.06.12.147819 bioRxiv
Show abstract

To battle the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread testing for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is worldwide being employed by specific real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) of viral RNA. The CDC has issued a recommended panel of PCR-based test sets that entail several primer/probe sets that target the SARS-CoV-2 N-gene, but also one that targets the human RNase P gene (h-RP) as a positive control for RNA extraction and/or reverse-transcription (RT) efficacy. We discovered that the CDC-recommended h-RP primer/probe set has a faulty design, because both PCR primers are located in the same exon, which allows for unwanted PCR-amplification of background genomic DNA (gDNA). By removing RNA from nose-swab samples by an RNase treatment, we showed that the presence of gDNA in samples resulted in false-positive signals for the h-RP test control. This is rather serious, because it could lead to false-negative test outcomes, since the CDC interpretation of an absent SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR signal plus a positive h-RP rRT-PCR signal is interpreted as "2019-nCoV not detected", whereas a false-positive h-RP rRT-PCR signal resulting from amplification of gDNA should be interpreted as "Invalid Result" and the procedure should be repeated. In order to overhaul the faulty h-RP rRT-PCR primer/probe set with minimal modification, we designed and tested several new h-RP reverse primers. Replacement of the CDC-recommended PCR reverse primer with our selected exon-exon junction reverse primer corrected the problem of false-positive results with this important SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test control and thus eliminated the problem of potential false-negative COVID-19 diagnoses.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.1%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
5
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
6
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.6%
7
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 35%
2.1%
9
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
14
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
15
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
16
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
17
BioTechniques
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
19
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.8%
21
Virus Research
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
23
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
24
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
27
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
28
Forensic Science International: Genetics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
29
Talanta
12 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
30
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%