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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dust, Kerry, Hedley, Adam, Nichol, Kim, Stein, Derek, Adam, Heather, Karlowsky, James A., Bullard, Jared, Van Caeseele, Paul, Alexander, David C.
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