Clinical validation of innovative, low cost, kit-free, RNA processing protocol for RT-PCR based COVID-19 testing.
Sahajpal, N. S.; Mondal, A. K.; Njau, A.; Ananth, S.; Kothandaraman, A.; Hegde, M.; Chaubey, A.; Padala, S.; Kota, V.; Caspary, K.; Tompkins, S. M.; Ross, T. M.; Rojiani, A. M.; Kolhe, R.
10.1101/2020.07.28.20163626 medRxivShow abstract
The current gold-standard molecular diagnosis for COVID-19 is based on a multi-step assay involving RNA-extraction and RT-PCR analysis for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. RNA-extraction step has been a major rate-limiting step in implementing high-throughput screening for COVID-19 during this pandemic. Moreover, clinical laboratories are facing several challenges that include cost, reagents, instrumentation, turn-around time, trained personnel, and supply-chain constraints to efficiently implement and sustain testing. Cognizant of these limitations, we evaluated the extraction-free methods described in the literature and have developed an innovative, simplified and easy protocol employing limited reagents to extract RNA for subsequent RT-PCR analysis. Nasopharyngeal-swab samples were subjected to the following individual conditions: 65{degrees}C for 15 minutes; 80{degrees}C for 5 minutes; 90{degrees}C for 5 minutes or 80{degrees}C for 1 minute, and processed for direct RT-PCR. These groups were also compared with a supplemental protocol adding isopropanol-ethanol-water elution steps followed by RT-PCR assay. The direct RT-PCR assay did not detect SARS-CoV-2 within the various temperature incubation only groups, whereas, the 90{degrees}C for 5 minutes-isopropanol-ethanol-water method was found to be comparable to the FDA-EUA method. Evaluation of the performance metrics for 100 clinical samples demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.2% and a specificity of 100%. The limit of detection was ascertained to be [~]40 copies/ml by absolute-quantification. The protocol presented for this assay employs limited reagents and yields results with high sensitivity. Additionally, it presents a simplified methodology that would be easier to implement in laboratories in limited resource countries in order to meet the high current COVID-19 testing needs.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory Developed Assays for in vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories 96%
- Performance characteristics of a high throughput automated transcription mediated amplification test for SARS-CoV-2 detection 96%
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- A simplified SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol for research laboratories 96%
- Validation of a Novel Molecular Assay to the Diagnostic of COVID-19 Based on Real Time PCR with High Resolution Melting 95%
- Sensitivity evaluation of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR detection kits and strategy to reduce false negative 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 95%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 95%
- SalivaSTAT: Direct-PCR and pooling of saliva samples collected in healthcare and community setting for SARS-CoV-2 mass surveillance 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a qualitative real-time RT-PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A guide and case study in setting up an emergency-use, laboratory-developed molecular assay 97%
- Molecular point-of-care testing for influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus: comparison of workflow parameters for the ID Now and cobas Liat systems 93%
- Increasing both specificity and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests by using an adaptive orthogonal testing approach 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.