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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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