• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Microbiol Biotechnol . Comparison of digital PCR and quantitative PCR with various SARS-CoV-2 primer-probe sets

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Microbiol Biotechnol


. 2020 Dec 25.
doi: 10.4014/jmb.2009.09006. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of digital PCR and quantitative PCR with various SARS-CoV-2 primer-probe sets


Changwoo Park[SUP] 1 2 3 [/SUP], Jina Lee[SUP] 1 4 [/SUP], Zohaib Ul Hassan[SUP] 1 3 5 [/SUP], Keun Bon Ku[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Seong Jun Kim[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Hong Gi Kim[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Edmond Changkyun Park[SUP] 3 5 6 [/SUP], Gun-Soo Park[SUP] 3 7 [/SUP], Daeui Park[SUP] 3 8 [/SUP], Seung-Hwa Baek[SUP] 3 8 [/SUP], Dongju Park[SUP] 1 3 9 [/SUP], Jihye Lee[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Sangeun Jeon[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Seungtaek Kim[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Chang-Seop Lee[SUP] 11 12 [/SUP], Hee Min Yoo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Seil Kim[SUP] 1 3 5 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Free article

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an international health emergency. Current diagnostic tests are based on the reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) method, which is the gold standard test that involves the amplification of viral RNA. However, the RT-qPCR assay has limitations in terms of sensitivity and quantification. In this study, we tested both qPCR and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect low amounts of viral RNA. The cycle threshold (C[SUB]T[/SUB]) of the viral RNA by RT-PCR significantly varied according to the sequences of the primer and probe sets with in vitro transcript (IVT) RNA or viral RNA as templates, whereas the copy number of the viral RNA by ddPCR was effectively quantified with IVT RNA, cultured viral RNA, and RNA from clinical samples. Furthermore, the clinical samples were assayed via both methods, and the sensitivity of the ddPCR was determined to be equal to or more than that of the RT-qPCR. However, the ddPCR assay is more suitable for determining the copy number of reference materials. These findings suggest that the qPCR assay with the ddPCR defined reference materials could be used as a highly sensitive and compatible diagnostic method for viral RNA detection.

Keywords: COVID-19; Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR); Envelope protein gene; Nucleocapsid protein gene; Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR); SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom