Cargando…
Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19
The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7206434/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32416600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104412 |
_version_ | 1783530416493297664 |
---|---|
author | van Kasteren, Puck B. van der Veer, Bas van den Brink, Sharon Wijsman, Lisa de Jonge, Jørgen van den Brandt, Annemarie Molenkamp, Richard Reusken, Chantal B.E.M. Meijer, Adam |
author_facet | van Kasteren, Puck B. van der Veer, Bas van den Brink, Sharon Wijsman, Lisa de Jonge, Jørgen van den Brandt, Annemarie Molenkamp, Richard Reusken, Chantal B.E.M. Meijer, Adam |
author_sort | van Kasteren, Puck B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate identification of virus-infected individuals by the most sensitive and specific method available, i.e. real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Many commercial kits have recently become available, but their performance has not yet been independently assessed. The aim of this study was to compare basic analytical and clinical performance of selected RT-PCR kits from seven different manufacturers (Altona Diagnostics, BGI, CerTest Biotec, KH Medical, PrimerDesign, R-Biopharm AG, and Seegene). We used serial dilutions of viral RNA to establish PCR efficiency and estimate the 95 % limit of detection (LOD95). Furthermore, we ran a panel of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical samples (n = 13) for a preliminary evaluation of clinical sensitivity. Finally, we used clinical samples positive for non-coronavirus respiratory viral infections (n = 6) and a panel of RNA from related human coronaviruses to evaluate assay specificity. PCR efficiency was ≥96 % for all assays and the estimated LOD95 varied within a 6-fold range. Using clinical samples, we observed some variations in detection rate between kits. Importantly, none of the assays showed cross-reactivity with other respiratory (corona)viruses, except as expected for the SARS-CoV-1 E-gene. We conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients by experienced molecular diagnostic laboratories. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7206434 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72064342020-05-08 Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 van Kasteren, Puck B. van der Veer, Bas van den Brink, Sharon Wijsman, Lisa de Jonge, Jørgen van den Brandt, Annemarie Molenkamp, Richard Reusken, Chantal B.E.M. Meijer, Adam J Clin Virol Article The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate identification of virus-infected individuals by the most sensitive and specific method available, i.e. real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Many commercial kits have recently become available, but their performance has not yet been independently assessed. The aim of this study was to compare basic analytical and clinical performance of selected RT-PCR kits from seven different manufacturers (Altona Diagnostics, BGI, CerTest Biotec, KH Medical, PrimerDesign, R-Biopharm AG, and Seegene). We used serial dilutions of viral RNA to establish PCR efficiency and estimate the 95 % limit of detection (LOD95). Furthermore, we ran a panel of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical samples (n = 13) for a preliminary evaluation of clinical sensitivity. Finally, we used clinical samples positive for non-coronavirus respiratory viral infections (n = 6) and a panel of RNA from related human coronaviruses to evaluate assay specificity. PCR efficiency was ≥96 % for all assays and the estimated LOD95 varied within a 6-fold range. Using clinical samples, we observed some variations in detection rate between kits. Importantly, none of the assays showed cross-reactivity with other respiratory (corona)viruses, except as expected for the SARS-CoV-1 E-gene. We conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients by experienced molecular diagnostic laboratories. The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 2020-07 2020-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7206434/ /pubmed/32416600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104412 Text en © 2020 The Authors Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article van Kasteren, Puck B. van der Veer, Bas van den Brink, Sharon Wijsman, Lisa de Jonge, Jørgen van den Brandt, Annemarie Molenkamp, Richard Reusken, Chantal B.E.M. Meijer, Adam Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 |
title | Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 |
title_full | Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 |
title_fullStr | Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 |
title_short | Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 |
title_sort | comparison of seven commercial rt-pcr diagnostic kits for covid-19 |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7206434/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32416600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104412 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vankasterenpuckb comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT vanderveerbas comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT vandenbrinksharon comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT wijsmanlisa comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT dejongejørgen comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT vandenbrandtannemarie comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT molenkamprichard comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT reuskenchantalbem comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 AT meijeradam comparisonofsevencommercialrtpcrdiagnostickitsforcovid19 |