Dataset Information

Evaluation of alternative RNA extraction methods for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples using the recommended CDC primer-probe set

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficiency of isolation and purification of the viral genome is a critical step to the accuracy and reliability of RT-qPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2. However, COVID-19 testing laboratories were overwhelmed by a surge in diagnostic demand that affected supply chains especially in low and middle-income facilities.

Objectives

Thus, this study compares the performance of alternative methods to extraction and purification of viral RNA in samples of patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Study design

Nasopharyngeal swabs were submitted to three in-house protocols and three commercial methods; viral genome was detected using the primer-probe (N1 and N2) described by CDC and viral load of samples were determined.

Results

The in-house protocols resulted in detection of virus in 82.4 to 86.3% of samples and commercial methods in 94.1 to 98%. The disagreement results were observed in samples with low viral load or below the estimated limit of detection of RT-qPCR.

Conclusion

The simplified methods proposed might be less reliable for patients with low viral load and alternative commercial methods showed comparable performance.

SUBMITTER: Perez V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8253666 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNumerous protocols for viral enrichment and genome amplification have been created. However, the direct identification of viral genomes from clinical specimens using next-generation sequencing (NGS) still has its challenges. As a selected viral nucleic acid extraction method may determine the sensitivity and reliability of NGS, it is still valuable to evaluate the extraction efficiency of different extraction kits using clinical specimens directly.ResultsIn this study, we performed qRT-PCR and viral metagenomic analysis of the extraction efficiency of four commonly used Qiagen extraction kits: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (VRMK), QIAamp MinElute Virus Spin Kit (MVSK), RNeasy Mini Kit (RMK), and RNeasy Plus Micro Kit (RPMK), using a mixed respiratory clinical sample without any pre-treatment. This sample contained an adenovirus (ADV), influenza virus A (Flu A), human parainfluenza virus 3 (PIV3), human coronavirus OC43 (OC43), and human metapneumovirus (HMPV). The quantity and quality of the viral extracts were significantly different among these kits. The highest threshold cycle(Ct)values for ADV and OC43 were obtained by using the RPMK. The MVSK had the lowest Ct values for ADV and PIV3. The RMK revealed the lowest detectability for HMPV and PIV3. The most effective rate of NGS data at 67.47% was observed with the RPMK. The other three kits ranged between 12.1-26.79% effectiveness rates for the NGS data. Most importantly, compared to the other three kits the highest proportion of non-host reads was obtained by the RPMK. The MVSK performed best with the lowest Ct value of 20.5 in the extraction of ADV, while the RMK revealed the best extraction efficiency by NGS analysis.ConclusionsThe evaluation of viral nucleic acid extraction efficiency is different between NGS and qRT-PCR analysis. The RPMK was most applicable for the metagenomic analysis of viral RNA and enabled more sensitive identification of the RNA virus genome in respiratory clinical samples. In addition, viral RNA extraction kits were also applicable for metagenomic analysis of the DNA virus. Our results highlighted the importance of nucleic acid extraction kit selection, which has a major impact on the yield and number of viral reads by NGS analysis. Therefore, the choice of extraction method for a given viral pathogen needs to be carefully considered.