Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

15 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Comparison of analytical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection kits.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has had a significant impact on global public health systems, making nucleic acid detection an important tool in epidemic prevention and control. Detection kits based on real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) have been used widely in clinics, but their analytical sensitivity (limit of detection, LOD) remains controversial. Moreover, there is limited research evaluating the analytical sensitivity of other molecular detection kits.

Methods

In this study, armored ribonucleic acid reference materials developed in-house were used to evaluate the analytical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits approved by the National Medical Products Administration. These were based on rRT-PCR and other molecular detection assays.

Results

The percentage retesting required with rRT-PCR kits was as follows: 0%, 7.69%, 15.38%, and 23.08% for samples with concentrations ranging from 50 000 to 781 copies/ml. In total, 93% of rRT-PCR kits had a LOD <1000 copies/ml. Only one kit had an LOD >1000 copies/ml. The LOD of other molecular detection kits ranged from 68 to 2264 copies/ml.

Conclusions

The study findings can help pharmaceutical companies optimize and improve detection kits, guide laboratories in selecting kits, and assist medical workers in their daily work.

SUBMITTER: Yang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8379823 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Comparison of analytical sensitivity of the eight rapid antigen detection kits for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8486682 | biostudies-literature

Analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity of the three rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits for diagnosing COVID-19 patients are available in the market recently.ObjectiveTo compare analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity for the three commercially available RAD kits.Study designAnalytical sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus was determined by limit of detection (LOD) using RT-PCR as a reference method. Clinical sensitivity was evaluated by using respiratory specimens collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients.ResultsThe LOD results showed that the three RAD kits varied from 102-105 fold less sensitive than RT-PCR. Clinical sensitivity of RAD kits ranged from 22.9 %-71.4 % for detecting specimens from COVID-19 patients.ConclusionsAlthough RAD kits were less sensitive than RT-PCR, understanding the clinical characteristics of different RAD kits can guide us to obtain suitable specimens for testing. The likelihood of positive results for RAD kits will be higher.

| S-EPMC7598567 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of three molecular diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection: Evaluation of analytical sensitivity and clinical performance.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection using real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is the standard diagnostic test for COVID-19 infection. Various rRT-PCR assays are currently used worldwide, targeting different genes of the SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) of Allplex SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV assay (Seegene), Standard M nCoV real-time detection kit (SD Biosensor), and U-TOP COVID-19 detection kit (Seasun Biomaterials) for SARS-CoV-2 detection.MethodsTwo hundred and forty-nine nasopharyngeal swab samples were evaluated to compare the clinical performance of the rRT-PCR assays. For the analytical performance evaluation, two RNA controls with known viral loads-SARS-CoV-2 RNA control and SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control-were used to investigate the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly the B.1.351 lineage.ResultsLimits of detection ranged from 650 to 1300 copies/ml for rRT-PCR assays, and the mean differences in cycle threshold (Ct ) values of the two RNA controls were within 1.0 for each target in the rRT-PCR assays (0.05-0.73), without any prominent Ct value shift or dropouts in the SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control. Using the consensus criterion as the reference standard, 89 samples were positive, whereas 160 were negative. The overall clinical performance of rRT-PCR assays was comparable (sensitivity 98.88%-100%; specificity 99.38%-100%), whereas the sensitivities of each target gene were more variable.ConclusionsThe three rRT-PCR assays showed comparable analytical sensitivity and clinical performance. The analytical and clinical sensitivities of each target gene were influenced more by the primer and probe design than the target gene itself.

| S-EPMC8842162 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation and comparison of the sensitivity of three commercial RT-qPCR kits used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Santiago, Chile.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic is still in force, causing global public health challenges and threats. Although vaccination and herd immunity have proven to be the most efficient way to control the pandemic, massive and early testing of patients using the RT-qPCR technique is crucial for constant genomic surveillance. The appearance of variants of SARS-CoV-2 with new mutations can reduce the efficiency of diagnostic detection. In this sense, several commercial RT-qPCR kits have been the target of extensive analysis because low assay performance could lead to false-negative diagnoses.MethodsIn this study, we evaluated the performance of three commercial RT-qPCR kits; Thermo Fisher (TaqMan 2019-nCoV Assay Kit v1), BGI and Roche (LightCycler® Multiplex RNA Virus Master) used for the diagnosis of COVID-19 throughout the pandemic in Santiago de Chile.ResultsUnder our best assay conditions, we found significant differences in Cq amplification values for control and viral probes, against the same nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs). In addition, in some cases, the sensitivity of the RT-qPCR kits decreased against viral variants.ConclusionOur study suggests evaluating the RT-qPCR kits used to detect SARS-CoV-2 because variants such as Omicron, which has several mutations, can compromise their detection and underestimate viral circulation.

| S-EPMC9742446 | biostudies-literature

Validation of the analytical performance of nine commercial RT-qPCR kits for SARS-CoV-2 detection using certified reference material.

Project description:The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency. Although many reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays have been developed, their performance, especially sensitivity assessment, has been insufficiently tested. In this study, a preliminary comparison of the analytical sensitivity of nine RT-qPCR kits from different manufacturers was first conducted using a certified reference material derived from the genomic RNA of SARS-CoV-2 as the template. Subsequently, three of the nine kits, comprising two highly sensitive kits (DAAN, Huirui) and one less sensitive kit (Geneodx), were selected for further sensitivity and specificity validation. The results revealed variations in the performance between kits of the two groups. For the two highly sensitive kits, the limits of detection at 95 % probability (LOD95%) were 5.6 copies of the N gene and 3.5 copies of the ORF 1ab per reaction (DAAN), and 6.4 (N) and 4.6 (ORF 1ab) copies per reaction (Huirui). These LOD95% values were approximately 3 to 4-fold better than those of the Geneodx Kit. However, none of these three Kits showed cross-reactivity against 6 other types of human coronaviruses or respiratory viruses. Because most of these commercial kits are approved as in vitro diagnostics (testing specimens without direct human contact), it would be beneficial for their manufacturers to improve the diagnostic capability of these kits and thus reduce the clinical risks associated with false-negative results.

| S-EPMC8434693 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between two PCR test kits for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the diagnostic efficacy between two different real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test kits for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid detection and provide references for laboratories.MethodsThroat swab samples from 18 hospitalized patients were clinically diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 100 hospitalized patients without COVID-19 were collected. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was detected in throat swab samples with RT-PCR test kits from Sansure Biotech Inc (Hunan, China) and Shanghai BioGerm Medical Biotechnology Co., Ltd.(Shanghai, China). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa value were analyzed, and three parallel tests were performed with three weakly positive samples.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa value of the Sansure PCR kit were 0.833, 1.000, 1.000, 0.971, and 0.894, respectively, and the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa value of the BioGerm PCR kit were 0.944, 1.000, 1.000, 0.990, and 0.966, respectively. For the three parallel tests, the coefficient of variation value of the BioGerm PCR kit in all three samples was the smallest for both the ORF1ab and N gene.ConclusionThe detection efficacy of the BioGerm PCR kit for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection was relatively higher than that of the Sansure PCR kit.

| S-EPMC7536918 | biostudies-literature

Sensitivity evaluation of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR detection kits and strategy to reduce false negative.

Project description:The early detection and differential diagnosis of respiratory infections increase the chances for successful control of COVID-19 disease. The nucleic acid RT-PCR test is regarded as the current standard for molecular diagnosis. However, the maximal specificity confirmation target ORF1ab gene is considered to be less sensitive than other targets in clinical application. In addition, recent evidence indicated that the initial missed diagnosis of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 and discharged patients with "re-examination positive" might be due to low viral load, and the ability of rapid mutation of SARS-CoV-2 also increases the rate of false-negative results. Moreover, the mixed sample nucleic acid detection is helpful in seeking out the early community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly, but the detection kit needs ultra-high detection sensitivity. Herein, the lowest detection concentration of different nucleic acid detection kits was evaluated and compared to provide direct evidence for the selection of kits for mixed sample detection or make recommendations for the selection of validation kit, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of the current epidemic and the discharge criteria of low viral load patients.

| S-EPMC7673793 | biostudies-literature

Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection.

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has quickly become a worldwide pandemic. In response, many diagnostic manufacturers have developed molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway. This study compared three of these assays, the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay (Fusion), the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima), and the BioFire Defense COVID-19 test (BioFire), to determine analytical and clinical performance as well as workflow. All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with 100% detection, ranging from 500 to 1,000 genome equivalents/ml, whereas use of a quantified RNA transcript standard showed the same trend but had values ranging from 62.5 to 125 copies/ml, confirming variability in absolute quantification of reference standards. The clinical correlation found that the Fusion and BioFire assays had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.7%, followed by the Aptima assay at 94.7%, compared to the consensus result. All three assays exhibited 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). Analysis of discordant results revealed that all four samples missed by the Aptima assay had cycle threshold (Ct ) values of >37 by the Fusion assay. In conclusion, while all three assays showed similar relative LODs, we showed differences in absolute LODs depending on which standard was employed. In addition, the Fusion and BioFire assays showed better clinical performance, while the Aptima assay showed a modest decrease in overall PPA. These findings should be kept in mind when making platform testing decisions.

| S-EPMC7448672 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation of Rapid Antigen Detection Kits for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529

Project description:Background Currently, there is a lack of studies evaluating rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529. Objective To evaluate the analytical sensitivity of seven RAD kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529. Study design The analytical sensitivity was determined by means of limit of detection (LOD). A dilution set using a respiratory specimen collected from a COVID-19 patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 was prepared. RT-PCR was used as a reference method. Results The LOD results showed that all seven RAD kits had comparable analytical sensitivity for detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529. Conclusions The RAD kits selected in the current study may be used for first-line screening of the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529.

| S-EPMC9153237 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation of rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 virus.

Project description:Aim: Currently, there is lack of data regarding rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 virus. Objective: The purpose of this evaluation is to assess analytical sensitivity of 12 RAD kits against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2. Study design: Analytical sensitivity was determined by limit of detection (LOD). A serial tenfold dilution set from a respiratory specimen collected from a COVID-19 patient infected by SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 was used. RT-PCR was used as a reference method. Results: The LOD results showed that 11 and one RAD kits were 100- and 1000-fold less sensitive than RT-PCR respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that the RAD kits evaluated in this study may be used for first-line screening of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 variant.

| S-EPMC9006337 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data