Cargando…

COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols

The gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and qualit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campos, Karoline Rodrigues, Sacchi, Cláudio Tavares, Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina, Pagnoca, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes, Dias, Alana dos Santos, Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama, Caterino-de-Araujo, Adele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8231976/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34190954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-9946202163052
_version_ 1783713539497656320
author Campos, Karoline Rodrigues
Sacchi, Cláudio Tavares
Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina
Pagnoca, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes
Dias, Alana dos Santos
Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama
Caterino-de-Araujo, Adele
author_facet Campos, Karoline Rodrigues
Sacchi, Cláudio Tavares
Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina
Pagnoca, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes
Dias, Alana dos Santos
Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama
Caterino-de-Araujo, Adele
author_sort Campos, Karoline Rodrigues
collection PubMed
description The gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and quality of the RNA input. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of three different kits/reagents for RNA extraction used in COVID-19 diagnosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A total of 300 NP/OP samples belonging to suspected cases of COVID-19 stored in a biorepository were randomly selected, and RNA was extracted using (i) automated extraction (Loccus, Extracta Kit FAST), (ii) manual extraction (BioGene Kit, Bioclin, Quibasa), and (iii) quick extraction methods (Lucigen, Quick DNA Extract Kit). Next, the samples were tested using RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 with the Allplex 2019-nCoV modified assay and the Charité-Berlin protocol. All assays/kits were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the Allplex kit, the sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 with previously extracted RNA by different procedures was 100.0% for Loccus, 100.0% for BioGene and 91.9% for Quick. Using the Charité-Berlin protocol, the sensitivities were 81.4% for Loccus, 81.2% for BioGene and 60.7% for Quick. The least sensitive target gene and the gene most affected by RNA extraction procedures was the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (Charité-Berlin protocol). No false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were detected using RNA obtained from any of the different protocols. In conclusion, Loccus and BioGene RNA extractions were efficient for RT-qPCR assays, and although the BioGene procedure is less expensive, Loccus is the best choice because it allows the rapid handling of hundreds or thousands of samples, a desirable feature during pandemics. Although less sensitive, the Quick extraction is useful during outbreaks coupled with the Allplex amplification kit for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (κ = 0.925).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8231976
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82319762021-07-01 COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols Campos, Karoline Rodrigues Sacchi, Cláudio Tavares Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina Pagnoca, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes Dias, Alana dos Santos Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama Caterino-de-Araujo, Adele Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Original Article The gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and quality of the RNA input. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of three different kits/reagents for RNA extraction used in COVID-19 diagnosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A total of 300 NP/OP samples belonging to suspected cases of COVID-19 stored in a biorepository were randomly selected, and RNA was extracted using (i) automated extraction (Loccus, Extracta Kit FAST), (ii) manual extraction (BioGene Kit, Bioclin, Quibasa), and (iii) quick extraction methods (Lucigen, Quick DNA Extract Kit). Next, the samples were tested using RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 with the Allplex 2019-nCoV modified assay and the Charité-Berlin protocol. All assays/kits were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the Allplex kit, the sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 with previously extracted RNA by different procedures was 100.0% for Loccus, 100.0% for BioGene and 91.9% for Quick. Using the Charité-Berlin protocol, the sensitivities were 81.4% for Loccus, 81.2% for BioGene and 60.7% for Quick. The least sensitive target gene and the gene most affected by RNA extraction procedures was the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (Charité-Berlin protocol). No false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were detected using RNA obtained from any of the different protocols. In conclusion, Loccus and BioGene RNA extractions were efficient for RT-qPCR assays, and although the BioGene procedure is less expensive, Loccus is the best choice because it allows the rapid handling of hundreds or thousands of samples, a desirable feature during pandemics. Although less sensitive, the Quick extraction is useful during outbreaks coupled with the Allplex amplification kit for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (κ = 0.925). Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo 2021-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8231976/ /pubmed/34190954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-9946202163052 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Campos, Karoline Rodrigues
Sacchi, Cláudio Tavares
Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina
Pagnoca, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes
Dias, Alana dos Santos
Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama
Caterino-de-Araujo, Adele
COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_full COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_fullStr COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_full_unstemmed COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_short COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_sort covid-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different rna extraction methods for sars-cov-2 detection by two amplification protocols
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8231976/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34190954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-9946202163052
work_keys_str_mv AT camposkarolinerodrigues covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols
AT sacchiclaudiotavares covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols
AT goncalvesclaudiaregina covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols
AT pagnocaericavalessaramosgomes covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols
AT diasalanadossantos covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols
AT fukasawalucilaokuyama covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols
AT caterinodearaujoadele covid19laboratorydiagnosiscomparativeanalysisofdifferentrnaextractionmethodsforsarscov2detectionbytwoamplificationprotocols