Journal of virological methods · 2021
How to choose the right real-time RT-PCR primer sets for the SARS-CoV-2 genome detection?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anantharajah Ahalieyah, Helaers Raphaël, Defour Jean-Philippe, Olive Nathalie, Kabera Florence, Croonen Luc, Deldime Françoise, Vaerman Jean-Luc, Barbée Cindy, Bodéus Monique, Scohy Anais, Verroken Alexia, Rodriguez-Villalobos Hector, Kabamba-Mukadi Benoît
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created an unprecedented need for rapid large-scale diagnostic testing to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays recommended by the World Health Organization are being used by clinical and public health laboratories and typically target regions of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) coding region. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. This study aimed to clarify the clinical performances of the primer/probe sets designed by US CDC and Charité/Berlin to help clinical laboratories in assay selection for SARS-CoV-2 routine detection.
METHODS: We compared the clinical performances of the recommended primer/probe sets using one hundred nasopharyngeal swab specimens from patients who were clinically diagnosed with COVID-19. An additional 30 "pre-intervention screening" samples from patients who were not suspected of COVID-19 were also included in this study. We also performed sequence alignment between 31064 European SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern genomes and the recommended primer/probe sets.
RESULTS: The present study demonstrates substantial differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection sensitivity among the primer/probe sets recommended by the World Health Organization especially for low-level viral loads. The alignment of thousands of SARS-CoV-2 sequences reveals that the genetic diversity remains relatively low at the primer/probe binding sites. However, multiple nucleotide mismatches might contribute to false negatives.
CONCLUSION: An understanding of the limitations depending on the targeted genes and primer/probe sets may influence the selection of molecular detection assays by clinical laboratories.
METHODS: We compared the clinical performances of the recommended primer/probe sets using one hundred nasopharyngeal swab specimens from patients who were clinically diagnosed with COVID-19. An additional 30 "pre-intervention screening" samples from patients who were not suspected of COVID-19 were also included in this study. We also performed sequence alignment between 31064 European SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern genomes and the recommended primer/probe sets.
RESULTS: The present study demonstrates substantial differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection sensitivity among the primer/probe sets recommended by the World Health Organization especially for low-level viral loads. The alignment of thousands of SARS-CoV-2 sequences reveals that the genetic diversity remains relatively low at the primer/probe binding sites. However, multiple nucleotide mismatches might contribute to false negatives.
CONCLUSION: An understanding of the limitations depending on the targeted genes and primer/probe sets may influence the selection of molecular detection assays by clinical laboratories.