Cargando…
Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis
Public health efforts to control the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic rely on accurate information on the spread of the disease in the community. Acute and surveillance testing has been primarily used to characterize the extent of the disease. However, obtaining...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9709738/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36450877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25187-1 |
_version_ | 1784841222854017024 |
---|---|
author | Huge, Bonnie Jaskowski North, Devin Mousseau, C. Bruce Bibby, Kyle Dovichi, Norman J. Champion, Matthew M. |
author_facet | Huge, Bonnie Jaskowski North, Devin Mousseau, C. Bruce Bibby, Kyle Dovichi, Norman J. Champion, Matthew M. |
author_sort | Huge, Bonnie Jaskowski |
collection | PubMed |
description | Public health efforts to control the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic rely on accurate information on the spread of the disease in the community. Acute and surveillance testing has been primarily used to characterize the extent of the disease. However, obtaining a representative sample of the human population is challenging because of limited testing capacity and incomplete testing compliance. Wastewater-based epidemiology is an agnostic alternative to surveillance testing that provides an average sample from the population served by the treatment facility. We compare the performance of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcription digital droplet PCR (RT-dPCR) for analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a regional wastewater treatment facility in northern Indiana, USA from the earliest stages of the pandemic. 1-L grab samples of wastewater were clarified and concentrated. Nucleic acids were extracted from aliquots and analyzed in parallel using the two methods. Synthetic viral nucleic acids were used for method development and generation of add-in standard-curves. Both methods were highly sensitive in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, with detection limits as low as 1 copy per 500 mL wastewater. RT-qPCR and RT-dPCR provided essentially identical coefficients of variation (s/[Formula: see text] = 0.15) for triplicate measurements made on wastewater samples taken on 16 days. We also observed a sevenfold decrease in viral load from a grab sample that was frozen at – 80 °C for 92 days compared to results obtained without freezing. Freezing samples before analysis should be discouraged. Finally, we found that treatment with a glycine release buffer resulted in a fourfold inhibition in RT-qPCR signal; treatment with a glycine release buffer also should be discouraged. Despite their prevalence and convenience in wastewater analysis, glycine release and freezing samples severely and additively (~ tenfold) degraded recovery and detection of SARS-CoV-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9709738 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97097382022-11-30 Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis Huge, Bonnie Jaskowski North, Devin Mousseau, C. Bruce Bibby, Kyle Dovichi, Norman J. Champion, Matthew M. Sci Rep Article Public health efforts to control the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic rely on accurate information on the spread of the disease in the community. Acute and surveillance testing has been primarily used to characterize the extent of the disease. However, obtaining a representative sample of the human population is challenging because of limited testing capacity and incomplete testing compliance. Wastewater-based epidemiology is an agnostic alternative to surveillance testing that provides an average sample from the population served by the treatment facility. We compare the performance of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcription digital droplet PCR (RT-dPCR) for analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a regional wastewater treatment facility in northern Indiana, USA from the earliest stages of the pandemic. 1-L grab samples of wastewater were clarified and concentrated. Nucleic acids were extracted from aliquots and analyzed in parallel using the two methods. Synthetic viral nucleic acids were used for method development and generation of add-in standard-curves. Both methods were highly sensitive in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, with detection limits as low as 1 copy per 500 mL wastewater. RT-qPCR and RT-dPCR provided essentially identical coefficients of variation (s/[Formula: see text] = 0.15) for triplicate measurements made on wastewater samples taken on 16 days. We also observed a sevenfold decrease in viral load from a grab sample that was frozen at – 80 °C for 92 days compared to results obtained without freezing. Freezing samples before analysis should be discouraged. Finally, we found that treatment with a glycine release buffer resulted in a fourfold inhibition in RT-qPCR signal; treatment with a glycine release buffer also should be discouraged. Despite their prevalence and convenience in wastewater analysis, glycine release and freezing samples severely and additively (~ tenfold) degraded recovery and detection of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9709738/ /pubmed/36450877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25187-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Huge, Bonnie Jaskowski North, Devin Mousseau, C. Bruce Bibby, Kyle Dovichi, Norman J. Champion, Matthew M. Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis |
title | Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis |
title_full | Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis |
title_short | Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis |
title_sort | comparison of rt-dpcr and rt-qpcr and the effects of freeze–thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater sars-cov-2 analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9709738/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36450877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25187-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hugebonniejaskowski comparisonofrtdpcrandrtqpcrandtheeffectsoffreezethawcycleandglycinereleasebufferforwastewatersarscov2analysis AT northdevin comparisonofrtdpcrandrtqpcrandtheeffectsoffreezethawcycleandglycinereleasebufferforwastewatersarscov2analysis AT mousseaucbruce comparisonofrtdpcrandrtqpcrandtheeffectsoffreezethawcycleandglycinereleasebufferforwastewatersarscov2analysis AT bibbykyle comparisonofrtdpcrandrtqpcrandtheeffectsoffreezethawcycleandglycinereleasebufferforwastewatersarscov2analysis AT dovichinormanj comparisonofrtdpcrandrtqpcrandtheeffectsoffreezethawcycleandglycinereleasebufferforwastewatersarscov2analysis AT championmatthewm comparisonofrtdpcrandrtqpcrandtheeffectsoffreezethawcycleandglycinereleasebufferforwastewatersarscov2analysis |