Selected article for: "Ct value and pcr kit"

Author: Seong, Moon-Woo; Lee, Seung Jun; Cho, Sung Im; Ko, Kyungphil; Kim, Mi-Na; Sung, Heungsub; Kim, Jae-Seok; Ahn, Ji Soo; Yu, Byung Su; Kim, Taek Soo; Kim, Eui Chong; Park, Sung Sup
Title: External Quality Assessment of MERS-CoV Molecular Diagnostics During the 2015 Korean Outbreak
  • Document date: 2015_2_23
  • ID: uiou7c2b_13
    Snippet: The first EQA materials were distributed to 51 laboratories and 46 results were returned (78.4% response rate), and the second EQA materials were distributed to 53 laboratories and 47 results were returned (88.6% response rate). Most of the participants used commercial rRT-PCR kits; of these, PowerChek MERS Real-Time PCR kit (KogeneBiotech, Daejon, Korea) was the most common, followed by DiaPlexQ MERS Virus Detection kit (SolGent, Seoul, Korea), .....
    Document: The first EQA materials were distributed to 51 laboratories and 46 results were returned (78.4% response rate), and the second EQA materials were distributed to 53 laboratories and 47 results were returned (88.6% response rate). Most of the participants used commercial rRT-PCR kits; of these, PowerChek MERS Real-Time PCR kit (KogeneBiotech, Daejon, Korea) was the most common, followed by DiaPlexQ MERS Virus Detection kit (SolGent, Seoul, Korea), and AccuPower MERS-CoV Real-Time RT-PCR kit (Bioneer, Daejon, Korea) (Tables 1 and 2) . Only two participants in the first phase and one participant in the second phase of EQA used in-house rRT-PCR methods. All participants reported both upE and ORF1a results in a semiquantitative manner (CT value). Different cut-off values were employed, depending on the kit used: 39, 35, and 38 for Accu-Power, PowerChek, and DiaPlexQ, respectively.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents