Cargando…
Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2
The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SAR...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier B.V.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7482591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32920028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113970 |
_version_ | 1783580813878624256 |
---|---|
author | Dust, Kerry Hedley, Adam Nichol, Kim Stein, Derek Adam, Heather Karlowsky, James A. Bullard, Jared Van Caeseele, Paul Alexander, David C. |
author_facet | Dust, Kerry Hedley, Adam Nichol, Kim Stein, Derek Adam, Heather Karlowsky, James A. Bullard, Jared Van Caeseele, Paul Alexander, David C. |
author_sort | Dust, Kerry |
collection | PubMed |
description | The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Performance characteristics for each test were determined by testing clinical specimens and reference material. All assays detect the pan-Sarbecovirus E (envelope structural protein) gene plus a SARS-CoV-2-specific target. The limit of detection for the E gene target varied from ∼2 copies/reaction to >30 copies/reaction. Due to assay-specific differences in sample processing and nucleic acid extraction, the overall analytical sensitivity ranged from 24 copies/mL specimen to 574 copies/mL specimen. Despite these differences, there was 100 % agreement between the commercial and laboratory developed tests. No false-negative or false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were observed and there was no cross-reactivity with common respiratory viruses, including endemic coronaviruses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7482591 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74825912020-09-11 Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Dust, Kerry Hedley, Adam Nichol, Kim Stein, Derek Adam, Heather Karlowsky, James A. Bullard, Jared Van Caeseele, Paul Alexander, David C. J Virol Methods Article The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Performance characteristics for each test were determined by testing clinical specimens and reference material. All assays detect the pan-Sarbecovirus E (envelope structural protein) gene plus a SARS-CoV-2-specific target. The limit of detection for the E gene target varied from ∼2 copies/reaction to >30 copies/reaction. Due to assay-specific differences in sample processing and nucleic acid extraction, the overall analytical sensitivity ranged from 24 copies/mL specimen to 574 copies/mL specimen. Despite these differences, there was 100 % agreement between the commercial and laboratory developed tests. No false-negative or false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were observed and there was no cross-reactivity with common respiratory viruses, including endemic coronaviruses. Elsevier B.V. 2020-11 2020-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7482591/ /pubmed/32920028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113970 Text en © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 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 Dust, Kerry Hedley, Adam Nichol, Kim Stein, Derek Adam, Heather Karlowsky, James A. Bullard, Jared Van Caeseele, Paul Alexander, David C. Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
title | Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full | Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_fullStr | Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_short | Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 |
title_sort | comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of sars-cov-2 |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7482591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32920028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113970 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dustkerry comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT hedleyadam comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT nicholkim comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT steinderek comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT adamheather comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT karlowskyjamesa comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT bullardjared comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT vancaeseelepaul comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 AT alexanderdavidc comparisonofcommercialassaysandlaboratorydevelopedtestsfordetectionofsarscov2 |