Cargando…
Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories
The continued search for intermediate hosts and potential reservoirs for SARS-CoV2 makes it clear that animal surveillance is critical in outbreak response and prevention. Real-time RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV2 detection can easily be adapted to different host species. U.S. veterinary diagnostic labo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8532215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34293974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10406387211029913 |
_version_ | 1784587021979746304 |
---|---|
author | Deng, Kaiping Uhlig, Steffen Ip, Hon S. Lea Killian, Mary Goodman, Laura B. Nemser, Sarah Ulaszek, Jodie Pickens, Shannon Newkirk, Robert Kmet, Matthew Frost, Kirstin Hettwer, Karina Colson, Bertrand Nichani, Kapil Schlierf, Anja Tkachenko, Andriy Reddy, Ravinder Reimschuessel, Renate |
author_facet | Deng, Kaiping Uhlig, Steffen Ip, Hon S. Lea Killian, Mary Goodman, Laura B. Nemser, Sarah Ulaszek, Jodie Pickens, Shannon Newkirk, Robert Kmet, Matthew Frost, Kirstin Hettwer, Karina Colson, Bertrand Nichani, Kapil Schlierf, Anja Tkachenko, Andriy Reddy, Ravinder Reimschuessel, Renate |
author_sort | Deng, Kaiping |
collection | PubMed |
description | The continued search for intermediate hosts and potential reservoirs for SARS-CoV2 makes it clear that animal surveillance is critical in outbreak response and prevention. Real-time RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV2 detection can easily be adapted to different host species. U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories have used the CDC assays or other national reference laboratory methods to test animal samples. However, these methods have only been evaluated using internal validation protocols. To help the laboratories evaluate their SARS-CoV2 test methods, an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) was performed in collaboration with multiple organizations. Forty-four sets of 19 blind-coded RNA samples in Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer or PrimeStore transport medium were shipped to 42 laboratories. Results were analyzed according to the principles of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 16140-2:2016 standard. Qualitative assessment of PrimeStore samples revealed that, in approximately two-thirds of the laboratories, the limit of detection with a probability of 0.95 (LOD95) for detecting the RNA was ≤20 copies per PCR reaction, close to the theoretical LOD of 3 copies per reaction. This level of sensitivity is not expected in clinical samples because of additional factors, such as sample collection, transport, and extraction of RNA from the clinical matrix. Quantitative assessment of Ct values indicated that reproducibility standard deviations for testing the RNA with assays reported as N1 were slightly lower than those for N2, and they were higher for the RNA in PrimeStore medium than those in TE buffer. Analyst experience and the use of either a singleplex or multiplex PCR also affected the quantitative ILC test results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8532215 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85322152021-10-23 Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories Deng, Kaiping Uhlig, Steffen Ip, Hon S. Lea Killian, Mary Goodman, Laura B. Nemser, Sarah Ulaszek, Jodie Pickens, Shannon Newkirk, Robert Kmet, Matthew Frost, Kirstin Hettwer, Karina Colson, Bertrand Nichani, Kapil Schlierf, Anja Tkachenko, Andriy Reddy, Ravinder Reimschuessel, Renate J Vet Diagn Invest Full Scientific Reports The continued search for intermediate hosts and potential reservoirs for SARS-CoV2 makes it clear that animal surveillance is critical in outbreak response and prevention. Real-time RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV2 detection can easily be adapted to different host species. U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories have used the CDC assays or other national reference laboratory methods to test animal samples. However, these methods have only been evaluated using internal validation protocols. To help the laboratories evaluate their SARS-CoV2 test methods, an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) was performed in collaboration with multiple organizations. Forty-four sets of 19 blind-coded RNA samples in Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer or PrimeStore transport medium were shipped to 42 laboratories. Results were analyzed according to the principles of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 16140-2:2016 standard. Qualitative assessment of PrimeStore samples revealed that, in approximately two-thirds of the laboratories, the limit of detection with a probability of 0.95 (LOD95) for detecting the RNA was ≤20 copies per PCR reaction, close to the theoretical LOD of 3 copies per reaction. This level of sensitivity is not expected in clinical samples because of additional factors, such as sample collection, transport, and extraction of RNA from the clinical matrix. Quantitative assessment of Ct values indicated that reproducibility standard deviations for testing the RNA with assays reported as N1 were slightly lower than those for N2, and they were higher for the RNA in PrimeStore medium than those in TE buffer. Analyst experience and the use of either a singleplex or multiplex PCR also affected the quantitative ILC test results. SAGE Publications 2021-07-23 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8532215/ /pubmed/34293974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10406387211029913 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Full Scientific Reports Deng, Kaiping Uhlig, Steffen Ip, Hon S. Lea Killian, Mary Goodman, Laura B. Nemser, Sarah Ulaszek, Jodie Pickens, Shannon Newkirk, Robert Kmet, Matthew Frost, Kirstin Hettwer, Karina Colson, Bertrand Nichani, Kapil Schlierf, Anja Tkachenko, Andriy Reddy, Ravinder Reimschuessel, Renate Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
title | Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in
use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
title_full | Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in
use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
title_fullStr | Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in
use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
title_full_unstemmed | Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in
use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
title_short | Interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays in
use by U.S. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
title_sort | interlaboratory comparison of sars-cov2 molecular detection assays in
use by u.s. veterinary diagnostic laboratories |
topic | Full Scientific Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8532215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34293974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10406387211029913 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dengkaiping interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT uhligsteffen interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT iphons interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT leakillianmary interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT goodmanlaurab interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT nemsersarah interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT ulaszekjodie interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT pickensshannon interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT newkirkrobert interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT kmetmatthew interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT frostkirstin interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT hettwerkarina interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT colsonbertrand interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT nichanikapil interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT schlierfanja interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT tkachenkoandriy interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT reddyravinder interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories AT reimschuesselrenate interlaboratorycomparisonofsarscov2moleculardetectionassaysinusebyusveterinarydiagnosticlaboratories |