Comparison of two digital PCR methods for EGFR DNA and SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute SARS-CoV-2 virus has undeniably highlighted the importance of reliable nucleic acid quantification. Digital PCR (dPCR) is capable of the absolute quantification of nucleic acids.Method
By using the droplet dPCR (QX200) and the digital real-time PCR (LOAA), the copy numbers were compared via multiple assays for three distinct targerts; EGFR DNA, SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 RNA.Results
The droplet dPCR and digital real-time PCR showed similar copy numbers for both DNA and RNA quantification. When the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of each method were estimated for DNA and RNA targets, the digital real-time PCR showed a higher sensitivity and precision especially with low copy number targets.Conclusion
The breath of nucleic acid testing in diagnostic applications continues to expand. In this study we applied common diagnostic targets to a novel digital real-time PCR methodology. It performed comparably to the established dPCR method with distinctive advantages and disadvantages for implementing in laboratories. These rapidly developing dPCR systems can be applied to benefit the accurate and sensitive nucleic acid testing for various clinical areas.
SUBMITTER: Lee SS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8206622 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Quantitative viral load assays have transformed our understanding of viral diseases. They hold similar potential to advance COVID-19 control and prevention, but SARS-CoV-2 viral load tests are not yet widely available. SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic tests, which typically employ real-time RT-PCR, yield semiquantitative results only. Droplet digital RT-PCR (RT-ddPCR) offers an attractive platform for SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification. Eight primer/probe sets originally developed for real-time RT-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests were evaluated for use in RT-ddPCR; three were identified as the most efficient, precise, and sensitive for RT-ddPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification. For example, the analytical efficiency for the E-Sarbeco primer/probe set was approximately 83%, whereas assay precision, measured as the coefficient of variation, was approximately 2% at 1000 input copies/reaction. Lower limits of quantification and detection for this primer/probe set were 18.6 and 4.4 input SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/reaction, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral loads in a convenience panel of 48 COVID-19-positive diagnostic specimens spanned a 6.2log10 range, confirming substantial viral load variation in vivo. RT-ddPCR-derived SARS-CoV-2 E gene copy numbers were further calibrated against cycle threshold values from a commercial real-time RT-PCR diagnostic platform. This log-linear relationship can be used to mathematically derive SARS-CoV-2 RNA copy numbers from cycle threshold values, allowing the wealth of available diagnostic test data to be harnessed to address foundational questions in SARS-CoV-2 biology.
| S-EPMC8164350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, the usage of digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) for various clinical applications has increased exponentially. In this study, a dPCR assay optimized on the Clarity Plus™ dPCR system was evaluated for the absolute quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. The assay demonstrated good inter- and intra- assay precision, accuracy, as well as excellent linearity across a range of over 6 orders of magnitude for target gene quantification. In addition, a comparison of the assay on both dPCR and qPCR platforms revealed that dPCR exhibited a slightly higher sensitivity compared to its qPCR counterpart when quantifying SARS-CoV-2 at a lower concentration. Overall, the results showed that the dPCR assay is a reliable and effective approach for the absolute quantification of SARS-CoV-2 and can be a valuable molecular tool in clinical applications such as detecting low viral loads in patients as well as in wastewater surveillance of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8339599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) since early 2020, has highlighted the need for sensitive and reliable diagnostic methods. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) has demonstrated superior performance over the gold-standard reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in detecting SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we explored the development of a multiplex ddPCR assay that enables sensitive quantification of SARS-CoV-2, which could be utilized for antiviral screening and the monitoring of COVID-19 patients. We designed a quadruplex ddPCR assay targeting four SARS-CoV-2 genes and evaluated its performance in terms of specificity, sensitivity, linearity, reproducibility, and precision using a two-color ddPCR detection system. The results showed that the quadruplex assay had comparable limits of detection and accuracy to the simplex ddPCR assays. Importantly, the quadruplex assay demonstrated significantly improved performance for samples with low viral loads and ambiguous results compared to the standard qRT-PCR approach. The developed multiplex ddPCR represents a valuable alternative and complementary tool for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 and potentially other pathogens in various application scenarios beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic. The improved sensitivity and reliability of this assay could contribute to more effective disease monitoring and antiviral screening during the ongoing public health crisis.
| S-EPMC11311395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as an international health emergency. Current diagnostic tests are based on the reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) method, which is the gold standard test that involves the amplification of viral RNA. However, the RT-qPCR assay has limitations in terms of sensitivity and quantification. In this study, we tested both qPCR and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect low amounts of viral RNA. The cycle threshold (CT) of the viral RNA by RT-PCR significantly varied according to the sequences of the primer and probe sets with in vitro transcript (IVT) RNA or viral RNA as templates, whereas the copy number of the viral RNA by ddPCR was effectively quantified with IVT RNA, cultured viral RNA, and RNA from clinical samples. Furthermore, the clinical samples were assayed via both methods, and the sensitivity of the ddPCR was determined to be equal to or more than that of the RT-qPCR. However, the ddPCR assay is more suitable for determining the copy number of reference materials. These findings suggest that the qPCR assay with the ddPCR defined reference materials could be used as a highly sensitive and compatible diagnostic method for viral RNA detection.
| S-EPMC9705847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Wastewater surveillance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging public health tool to understand the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in communities. The performance of different virus concentration methods and PCR methods needs to be evaluated to ascertain their suitability for use in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. We evaluated ultrafiltration and polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation methods to concentrate SARS-CoV-2 from sewage in wastewater treatment plants and upstream in the wastewater network (e.g., manholes, lift stations). Recovery of viruses by different concentration methods was determined using Phi6 bacteriophage as a surrogate for enveloped viruses. Additionally, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in all wastewater samples was determined using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcription droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR), targeting three genetic markers (N1, N2 and E). Using spiked samples, the Phi6 recoveries were estimated at 2.6-11.6% using ultrafiltration-based methods and 22.2-51.5% using PEG precipitation. There was no significant difference in recovery efficiencies (p < 0.05) between the PEG procedure with and without a 16 h overnight incubation, demonstrating the feasibility of obtaining same day results. The SARS-CoV-2 genetic markers were more often detected by RT-ddPCR than RT-qPCR with higher sensitivity and precision. While all three SARS-CoV-2 genetic markers were detected using RT-ddPCR, the levels of E gene were almost below the limit of detection using RT-qPCR. Collectively, our study suggested PEG precipitation is an effective low-cost procedure which allows a large number of samples to be processed simultaneously in a routine wastewater monitoring for SARS-CoV-2. RT-ddPCR can be implemented for the absolute quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genetic markers in different wastewater matrices.
| S-EPMC8297606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RT-qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma from COVID-19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease).MethodsThe presence/concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVID-19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RT-qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 detection kit, and RT-qPCR was performed using GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science.ResultsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RT-qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RT-qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups (P < .001), by both ddPCR and RT-qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RT-qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively).ConclusionBoth methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia between groups, with ICU patients showing the highest (>85%). RT-qPCR was as useful as ddPCR to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in plasma.
| S-EPMC7995030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.
| S-EPMC10100669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gene expression measurements detailing mRNA quantities are widely employed in molecular biology and are increasingly important in diagnostic fields. Reverse transcription (RT), necessary for generating complementary DNA, can be both inefficient and imprecise, but remains a quintessential RNA analysis tool using qPCR. This study developed a Transcriptomic Calibration Material and assessed the RT reaction using digital (d)PCR for RNA measurement. While many studies characterise dPCR capabilities for DNA quantification, less work has been performed investigating similar parameters using RT-dPCR for RNA analysis. RT-dPCR measurement using three, one-step RT-qPCR kits was evaluated using single and multiplex formats when measuring endogenous and synthetic RNAs. The best performing kit was compared to UV quantification and sensitivity and technical reproducibility investigated. Our results demonstrate assay and kit dependent RT-dPCR measurements differed significantly compared to UV quantification. Different values were reported by different kits for each target, despite evaluation of identical samples using the same instrument. RT-dPCR did not display the strong inter-assay agreement previously described when analysing DNA. This study demonstrates that, as with DNA measurement, RT-dPCR is capable of accurate quantification of low copy RNA targets, but the results are both kit and target dependent supporting the need for calibration controls.
| S-EPMC3779174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cell-associated (CA) HIV-1 RNA is considered a potential marker for assessment of viral reservoir dynamics and antiretroviral therapy (ART) response in HIV-infected patients. Recent studies employed sensitive seminested real-time quantitative (q)PCR to quantify CA HIV-1 RNA. Digital PCR has been recently described as an alternative PCR-based technique for absolute quantification with higher accuracy compared to qPCR. Here, a comparison was made between the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and the seminested qPCR for quantification of unspliced (us) and multiply spliced (ms) CA HIV-1 RNA. Synthetic RNA standards and CA HIV-1 RNA from infected patients on and off ART (N = 34) were quantified with both methods. Correlations were observed between the methods both for serially diluted synthetic standards (usRNA: R2 = 0.97, msRNA: R2 = 0.92) and patient-derived samples (usRNA: R2 = 0.51, msRNA: R2 = 0.87). Seminested qPCR showed better quantitative linearity, accuracy and sensitivity in the quantification of synthetic standards than ddPCR, especially in the lower quantification ranges. Both methods demonstrated equally high detection rate of usRNA in patient samples on and off ART (91%), whereas ddPCR detected msRNA in larger proportion of samples from ART-treated patients (p = 0.13). We observed an average agreement between the methods for usRNA quantification in patient samples, albeit with a large standard deviation (bias = 0.05±0.75 log10). However, a bias of 0.94±0.36 log10 was observed for msRNA. No-template controls were consistently negative in the seminested qPCR, but yielded a positive ddPCR signal for some wells. Therefore, the false positive signals may have affected the detection power of ddPCR in this study. Digital PCR is promising for HIV nucleic acid quantification, but the false positive signals need further attention. Quantitative assays for CA HIV RNA have the potential to improve monitoring of patients on ART and to be used in clinical studies aimed at HIV eradication, but should be cross-validated by multiple laboratories prior to wider use.
| S-EPMC3897572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of SARS-CoV-2 viral load in predicting contagiousness, disease severity, transmissibility, and clinical decision-making continues to be an area of great interest. However, most studies have been in adults and have evaluated SARS-CoV-2 loads using cycle thresholds (Ct) values, which are not standardized preventing consistent interpretation critical to understanding clinical impact and utility. Here, a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) assay normalized to WHO International Units was applied to children at risk of severe disease diagnosed with COVID-19 at St Jude Children's Research Hospital between March 28, 2020, and January 31, 2022.MethodsDemographic and clinical information from children, adolescents and young adults treated at St Jude Children's Research Hospital were abstracted from medical records. Respiratory samples underwent SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantitation by RT-dPCR targeting N1 and N2 genes, with sequencing to determine the genetic lineage of infecting virus.ResultsFour hundred and sixty-two patients aged 0-24 years (median 11 years old) were included during the study period. Most patients were infected by the omicron variant (43.72%), followed by ancestral strain (22.29%), delta (13.20%) and alpha (2.16%). Viral load at presentation ranged from 2.49 to 9.14 log10 IU/ml, and higher viral RNA loads were associated with symptoms (OR 1.32: CI95% 1.16-1.49) and respiratory disease (OR 1.23: CI95% 1.07-1.41). Viral load did not differ by SARS-CoV-2 variant, vaccination status, age, or baseline diagnosis.ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 RNA loads predict the presence of symptomatic and respiratory diseases. The use of standardized, quantitative methods is feasible, allows for replication, comparisons across institutions, and has the potential to facilitate consensus quantitative thresholds for risk stratification and treatment.
| S-EPMC10725239 | biostudies-literature