• 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 Virol Methods . Comparison of eleven in vitro diagnostic assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Virol Methods


. 2021 Jun 1;114200.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114200. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of eleven in vitro diagnostic assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA


William G Dundon[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tirumala B K Settypalli[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Katharina Spiegel[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Adi Steinrigl[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Sandra Revilla-Fernández[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Friedrich Schmoll[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Ivancho Naletoski[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Charles E Lamien[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Giovanni Cattoli[SUP] 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Transmission mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 requires the availability of accurate and sensitive detection methods. There are several commercial ad hoc molecular diagnostic kits currently on the market, many of which have been evaluated by different groups. However, in low resource settings the availability and cost of these commercial kits can be a limiting factor to many diagnostic laboratories. In such cases alternatives need to be identified. With this in mind eight commercial reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) master mixes from Applied Biosystems (Thermo Fisher Scientific), Bio-Rad, Biotech Rabbit, Promega, Qiagen, QuantaBio, Invitrogen (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Takara using the same commercial primer and probe mix [LightMix® Modular SARS and Wuhan CoV E-gene mix (TIB MolBiol, Germany)] were evaluated. Three ad hoc molecular diagnostic kits [GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp kit (Osang Healthcare); genesig® Real-Time PCR Coronavirus COVID-19 (Primerdesign); and ViroReal® Kit SARS-CoV-2 & SARS-CoV (Ingenetix)] were also included in the study. The limit of detection was calculated for each assay using serial dilutions of a defined clinical sample. The performances of the assays were compared using a panel of 178 clinical samples and their analytical specificity assessed against a panel of human betacoronaviruses. Inter assay agreement was assessed using statistical tests (Bland-Altman, Fleiss-Kappa and Cohen's Kappa) and was shown to be excellent to good in all cases. We conclude that all of the assays evaluated in this study can be used for the routine detection of SARS-CoV-2 and that the RT-qPCR master mixes are a valid alternative to ad hoc molecular diagnostic kits.

Keywords: Agreement; Evaluation; Limit of detection; Master mixes; Molecular diagnostic assays; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom