• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Virol Methods . The potential application of digital PCR in Detecting Different SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Virol Methods


. 2025 Apr 1:115151.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2025.115151. Online ahead of print. The potential application of digital PCR in Detecting Different SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads

Chunyan Chang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lingling Li[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yating Guo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Li Ji[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jinyue Tian[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Shenglin Xu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Xiuhong Zhang[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Xinyi Jiang[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Weizhen Qiao[SUP] 6 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Abstract

Rapid, effective, and accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is crucial. It is essential to control the spread of the virus and ensure accurate treatment for the disease. In the study, a total of 170 clinical specimens from 164 patients were collected and analyzed through digital PCR (dPCR) and real time quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). The results showed an 86.41% agreement between dPCR and RT-qPCR, with differences primarily noted in suspected cases. RT-qPCR exhibited a sensitivity of 84.78%, specificity of 95.83%, and accuracy of 86.42%, which were comparatively lower than the 100% accuracy of dPCR. Subsequently, we explored the potential correlation between these two methodologies based on Ct value groups. A strong negative correlation was observed between RT-qPCR and dPCR techniques in the Ct value group between 25 and 35, while the correlation was weakest in the Ct > 35 group. Moreover, the concordance rate for detecting the ORF1 (142/162) gene by RT-qPCR was lower compared to that of the N gene (149/162). Additionally, nucleic acid concentrations for ORF1 gene detection were lower than those for N gene detection in dPCR. In conclusion, this study shows that dPCR provides more reliable detection than RT-qPCR, especially for samples with low viral loads. Furthermore, dPCR effectively tracked changes in viral load during hospitalization, facilitating the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

Keywords: digital PCR; nucleic acid detection; real time quantitative reverse transcription PCR; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

 
Back
Top Bottom