Back

In-house modification and improvement of the CDC real-time PCR diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Das, S.; Dowell-Martino, C.; Arrigo, L.; Fiedler, P. N.; Lobo, S.

2020-07-11 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.07.10.20150771 medRxiv
Show abstract

The world is currently facing an unprecedented pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) which was first reported in late 2019 by China to the World Health Organization (WHO). The containment strategy for COVID-19, which has non-specific flu-like symptoms and where upwards of 80% of the affected has either mild or no symptoms, is critically centered upon diagnostic testing, tracking and isolation. Thus, the development of specific and sensitive diagnostic tests for COVID-19 is key towards the first successful step of disease management. Public health organizations like the WHO and the US-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have developed real-time PCR (RT-PCR) based diagnostic tests to aid in the detection of acute infection. In this study we sought to modify the CDC RT-PCR diagnostic assay protocol to increase its sensitivity and to make the assay directly portable to health care providers in a community-based hospital setting. A number of modifications to the original protocol were tested. Increasing the RT-PCR annealing temperature by 7{degrees}C to 62{degrees}C was associated with the most significant improvement in sensitivity, wherein the cycle-threshold (Ct) value for the N2 assay was reduced by [~]3 units, in effect both reducing the overall number of inconclusive results and yielding N1/N2 assays to have similar Ct values. The limit of detection of the modified assay was also improved (0.86 RNA copies/{micro}l for both nCoV 2019_N1/N2 assays) compared to the CDC RT-PCR diagnostic assay (1 and 3.16 RNA copies/{micro}l for nCoV 2019_N1 and N2 assay, respectively). Using this modification, there was no significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 detection rate when viral RNA extraction was performed either manually or through an automated extraction method. We believe this modified protocol allows for more sensitive detection of the virus which in turn will be useful for pandemic management.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.0%
3
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
4
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.8%
6
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
7
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Virus Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
10
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
12
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
13
Virology Journal
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
20
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Journal of General Virology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
23
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
25
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%