» Articles » PMID: 34454016

Digital PCR Can Augment the Interpretation of RT-qPCR Cq Values for SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious, acute respiratory disease caused mainly by person-to-person transmission of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Its emergence has caused a world-wide acute health crisis, intensified by the challenge of reliably identifying individuals likely to transmit the disease. Diagnosis is hampered by the many unknowns surrounding this disease, including those relating to infectious viral burden. This uncertainty is exacerbated by disagreement surrounding the clinical relevance of molecular testing using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) for the presence of viral RNA, most often based on the reporting of quantification cycles (Cq), which is also termed the cycle threshold (Ct) or crossing point (Cp). Despite it being common knowledge that Cqs are relative values varying according to a wide range of different parameters, there have been efforts to use them as though they were absolute units, with Cqs below an arbitrarily determined value, deemed to signify a positive result and those above, a negative one. Our results investigated the effects of a range of common variables on Cq values. These data include a detailed analysis of the effect of different carrier molecules on RNA extraction. The impact of sample matrix of buccal swabs and saliva on RNA extraction efficiency was demonstrated in RT-qPCR and the impact of potentially inhibiting compounds in urine along with bile salts were investigated in RT-digital PCR (RT-dPCR). The latter studies were performed such that the impact on the RT step could be separated from the PCR step. In this way, the RT was shown to be more susceptible to inhibitors than the PCR. Together, these studies demonstrate that the consequent variability of test results makes subjective Cq cut-off values unsuitable for the identification of infectious individuals. We also discuss the importance of using reliable control materials for accurate quantification and highlight the substantial role played by dPCR as a method for their development.

Citing Articles

An evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of diagnostic tests for foot and mouth disease: are novel diagnostic tests for FMD more feasible than conventional tests in Southeast Asia?.

Tan W, Ward M Aust Vet J. 2024; 102(12):616-625.

PMID: 39375190 PMC: 11608923. DOI: 10.1111/avj.13376.


RT-qPCR Testing and Performance Metrics in the COVID-19 Era.

Bustin S Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(17).

PMID: 39273275 PMC: 11394961. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25179326.


Evaluating the sensitivity of droplet digital PCR for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.

de la Cruz Barron M, Kneis D, Geissler M, Dumke R, Dalpke A, Berendonk T Front Public Health. 2024; 11:1271594.

PMID: 38425410 PMC: 10903512. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1271594.


Normalizing real-time PCR results in routine testing.

Armenta-Leyva B, Munguia-Ramirez B, Cheng T, Ye F, Henao-Diaz A, Gimenez-Lirola L J Vet Diagn Invest. 2023; 36(1):78-85.

PMID: 37919959 PMC: 10734596. DOI: 10.1177/10406387231206080.


A multiplexed, paired-pooled droplet digital PCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.

Wagner K, Fox P, Gordon E, Hahn W, Olsen K, Markham A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):3075.

PMID: 36813822 PMC: 9944410. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29858-5.


References
1.
Falak S, Macdonald R, Busby E, OSullivan D, Milavec M, Plauth A . An assessment of the reproducibility of reverse transcription digital PCR quantification of HIV-1. Methods. 2021; 201:34-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.03.006. View

2.
Huggett J, Benes V, Bustin S, Garson J, Harris K, Kammel M . Cautionary Note on Contamination of Reagents Used for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2. Clin Chem. 2020; 66(11):1369-1372. PMC: 7499524. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa214. View

3.
Ahmed W, Tscharke B, Bertsch P, Bibby K, Bivins A, Choi P . SARS-CoV-2 RNA monitoring in wastewater as a potential early warning system for COVID-19 transmission in the community: A temporal case study. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 761:144216. PMC: 7718102. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144216. View

4.
Sanders R, Huggett J, Bushell C, Cowen S, Scott D, Foy C . Evaluation of digital PCR for absolute DNA quantification. Anal Chem. 2011; 83(17):6474-84. DOI: 10.1021/ac103230c. View

5.
Huggett J . The Digital MIQE Guidelines Update: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments for 2020. Clin Chem. 2020; 66(8):1012-1029. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa125. View