tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis
. 2022 Mar 19;103(2):115677.
doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115677. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of reverse-transcription qPCR and droplet digital PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens of hospitalized patients
Jingyuan Li[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Weishi Lin[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Pibo Du[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Wei Liu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xiong Liu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Chaojie Yang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ruizhong Jia[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yong Wang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yong Chen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Leili Jia[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Li Han[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Weilong Tan[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Nan Liu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Junjie Du[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Yuehua Ke[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Changjun Wang[SUP] 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is not only necessary for viral load monitoring to optimize treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but also critical for deciding whether the patient could be discharged without any risk of viral shedding. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) is more sensitive than reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and is usually considered the superior choice. In the current study, we compared the clinical performance of RT-qPCR and ddPCR using oropharyngeal swab samples from patients hospitalized in the temporary Huoshenshan Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Results demonstrated that ddPCR was indeed more sensitive than RT-qPCR. Negative results might be caused by poor sampling technique or recovered patients, as the range of viral load in these patients varied significantly. In addition, both methods were highly correlated in terms of their ability to detect all three target genes as well as the ratio of copies of viral genes to that of the IC gene. Furthermore, our results evidenced that both methods detected the N gene more easily than the ORF gene. Taken together, these findings imply that the use of ddPCR, as an alternative to RT-qPCR, is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients.
Keywords: COVID-19; Clinical performance; Quantitative detection; RT-qPCR; SARS-CoV-2; ddPCR.
. 2022 Mar 19;103(2):115677.
doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115677. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of reverse-transcription qPCR and droplet digital PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens of hospitalized patients
Jingyuan Li[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Weishi Lin[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Pibo Du[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Wei Liu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xiong Liu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Chaojie Yang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ruizhong Jia[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yong Wang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yong Chen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Leili Jia[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Li Han[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Weilong Tan[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Nan Liu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Junjie Du[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Yuehua Ke[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Changjun Wang[SUP] 7 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35417835
- DOI: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115677
Abstract
Accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is not only necessary for viral load monitoring to optimize treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but also critical for deciding whether the patient could be discharged without any risk of viral shedding. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) is more sensitive than reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and is usually considered the superior choice. In the current study, we compared the clinical performance of RT-qPCR and ddPCR using oropharyngeal swab samples from patients hospitalized in the temporary Huoshenshan Hospital, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Results demonstrated that ddPCR was indeed more sensitive than RT-qPCR. Negative results might be caused by poor sampling technique or recovered patients, as the range of viral load in these patients varied significantly. In addition, both methods were highly correlated in terms of their ability to detect all three target genes as well as the ratio of copies of viral genes to that of the IC gene. Furthermore, our results evidenced that both methods detected the N gene more easily than the ORF gene. Taken together, these findings imply that the use of ddPCR, as an alternative to RT-qPCR, is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients.
Keywords: COVID-19; Clinical performance; Quantitative detection; RT-qPCR; SARS-CoV-2; ddPCR.