Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Analytical comparisons of SARS-COV-2 detection by qRT-PCR and ddPCR with multiple primer/probe sets

2020; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 9; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/22221751.2020.1772679

2222-1751

Xinjin Liu, Jiangpeng Feng, Qiuhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Lu Zhang, Tao Suo, Wenjia Hu, Ming Guo, Xin Wang, Zhixiang Huang, Yong Xiong, Guozhong Chen, Yu Chen, Ke Lan,

Biosensors and Analytical Detection

Different primers/probes sets have been developed all over the world for the nucleic acid detection of SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) as a standard method. In our recent study, we explored the feasibility of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for clinical SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection compared with qRT-PCR using the same primer/probe sets issued by Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) targeting viral ORF1ab or N gene, which showed that ddPCR could largely minimize the false negatives reports resulted by qRT-PCR [Suo T, Liu X, Feng J, et al. ddPCR: a more sensitive and accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens. medRxiv [Internet]. 2020;2020.02.29.20029439. Available from: https://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/06/2020.02.29.20029439.abstract]. Here, we further stringently compared the performance of qRT-PCR and ddPCR for 8 primer/probe sets with the same clinical samples and conditions. Results showed that none of 8 primer/probe sets used in qRT-PCR could significantly distinguish true negatives and positives with low viral load (10−4 dilution). Moreover, false positive reports of qRT-PCR with UCDC-N1, N2 and CCDC-N primers/probes sets were observed. In contrast, ddPCR showed significantly better performance in general for low viral load samples compared to qRT-PCR. Remarkably, the background readouts of ddPCR are relatively lower, which could efficiently reduce the production of false positive reports.