Evaluation of Advanced Reverse Transcription-PCR Assays and an Alternative PCR Target Region for Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-associated Coronavirus
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
First-generation reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) gave false-negative results in a considerable fraction of patients. In the present study, we evaluated two second-generation, replicase (R) gene-based, real-time RT-PCR test kits--the RealArt HPA coronavirus LC kit (Artus, Hamburg, Germany) and the LightCycler SARS-CoV quantification kit (Roche, Penzberg, Germany)--and a real-time RT-PCR assay for the nucleocapsid (N) gene. Detecting the N-gene RNA might be advantageous due to its high abundance in cells. The kits achieved sensitivities of 70.8% (Artus) and 67.1% (Roche) in 66 specimens from patients with confirmed SARS (samples primarily from the upper and lower respiratory tract and stool). The sensitivity of the N-gene assay was 74.2%. The differences in all of the sensitivities were not statistically significant (P = 0.680 [analysis of variance]). Culture cells initially contained five times more N- than R-gene RNA, but the respective levels converged during 4 days of virus replication. In clinical samples the median concentrations of R- and N-gene RNA, respectively, were 1.2 x 10(6) and 2.8 x 10(6) copies/ml (sputum and endotracheal aspirates), 4.3 x 10(4) and 5.5 x 10(4) copies/ml (stool), and 5.5 x 10(2) and 5.2 x 10(2) copies/sample (throat swabs and saliva). Differences between the samples types were significant but not between the types of target RNA. All (n = 12) samples from the lower respiratory tract tested positive in all tests. In conclusion, the novel assays are more sensitive than the first-generation tests, but they still do not allow a comprehensive ruling out of SARS. Methods for the routine sampling of sputum without infection risk are needed to improve SARS RT-PCR.
SARS-CoV-2 infection of sustentacular cells disrupts olfactory signaling pathways.
Verma A, Zheng J, Meyerholz D, Perlman S JCI Insight. 2022; 7(24).
PMID: 36378534 PMC: 9869979. DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.160277.
Anderson R, Vegvari C, Hollingsworth T, Pi L, Maddren R, Ng C Interface Focus. 2021; 11(6):20210008.
PMID: 34956588 PMC: 8504893. DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2021.0008.
Modelling personal cautiousness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study for Turkey and Italy.
Bulut H, Golgeli M, Atay F Nonlinear Dyn. 2021; 105(1):957-969.
PMID: 33994665 PMC: 8112477. DOI: 10.1007/s11071-021-06320-7.
Lee C, Tham J, Png S, Chai C, Ng S, Min Tan E J Med Virol. 2021; 93(7):4603-4607.
PMID: 33719033 PMC: 8250924. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26940.
SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2: A Diagnostic Challenge.
Ezhilan M, Suresh I, Nesakumar N Measurement (Lond). 2021; 168:108335.
PMID: 33519010 PMC: 7833337. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108335.