Journal of virological methods · 2021
Digital PCR assay for the effective detection of COVID-19 patients with SARS-CoV-2 low viral load.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sun Yong, Ding Chengchao, Chen Qingqing, Xie Jiajia, Yu Junling, Shi Yonglin, Jiang Chengcheng, Zhang Zhuhui, He Hongliang, Ge Yinglu, Li Wenting, He Jun, Gao Yong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Viral nucleic acid detection by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is the current standard method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, due to low viral load in some COVID-19 patients, false negative results from this method have been repeatedly reported.
METHOD: In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of digital PCR (dPCR) in simulated samples and clinical samples with qPCR assay through a series of vigorous tests.
RESULTS: The results showed that dPCR was more sensitive than qPCR especially for samples with low viral load (≤3 copies). In addition, dPCR had similar specificity as qPCR and could effectively distinguish other human coronaviruses and influenza virus from SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, dPCR was more sensitive than qPCR in detecting the virus in the "negative" samples from recurrent COVID-19 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, dPCR could serve as a powerful complement to the current qPCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection, especially for the samples with extremely low viral load, such as recurrent COVID-19 patients.
METHOD: In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of digital PCR (dPCR) in simulated samples and clinical samples with qPCR assay through a series of vigorous tests.
RESULTS: The results showed that dPCR was more sensitive than qPCR especially for samples with low viral load (≤3 copies). In addition, dPCR had similar specificity as qPCR and could effectively distinguish other human coronaviruses and influenza virus from SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, dPCR was more sensitive than qPCR in detecting the virus in the "negative" samples from recurrent COVID-19 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, dPCR could serve as a powerful complement to the current qPCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection, especially for the samples with extremely low viral load, such as recurrent COVID-19 patients.