Selected article for: "extraction efficiency and nucleic acid extraction"

Author: Chu, Allen Wing-Ho; Yip, Cyril Chik-Yan; Chan, Wan-Mui; Ng, Anthony Chin-Ki; Chan, Dream Lok-Sze; Siu, Ryan Ho-Ping; Chung, Cheuk Yiu Tenny; Ng, Jessica Pui-Ling; Kittur, Harsha; Mosley, Garrett Lee; Poon, Rosana Wing-Shan; Chiu, Ricky Yin-To; To, Kelvin Kai-Wang
Title: Evaluation of an Automated High-Throughput Liquid-Based RNA Extraction Platform on Pooled Nasopharyngeal or Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR
  • Cord-id: mlxktlt3
  • Document date: 2021_4_2
  • ID: mlxktlt3
    Snippet: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR with pooled specimens has been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic as a cost- and manpower-saving strategy for large-scale testing. However, there is a paucity of data on the efficiency of different nucleic acid extraction platforms on pooled specimens. This study compared a novel automated high-throughput liquid-based RNA extraction (LRE) platform (PHASIFY™) with a widely used magnetic bead-based total nucleic acid extraction (MBTE) platform (NucliSENS(®) easyMAG(®)).
    Document: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR with pooled specimens has been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic as a cost- and manpower-saving strategy for large-scale testing. However, there is a paucity of data on the efficiency of different nucleic acid extraction platforms on pooled specimens. This study compared a novel automated high-throughput liquid-based RNA extraction (LRE) platform (PHASIFY™) with a widely used magnetic bead-based total nucleic acid extraction (MBTE) platform (NucliSENS(®) easyMAG(®)). A total of 60 pools of nasopharyngeal swab and 60 pools of posterior oropharyngeal saliva specimens, each consisting of 1 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 9 SARS-CoV-2 negative specimens, were included for the comparison. Real-time RT-PCR targeting the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp/Hel gene was performed, and GAPDH RT-PCR was used to detect RT-PCR inhibitors. No significant differences were observed in the Ct values and overall RT-PCR positive rates between LRE and MBTE platforms (92.5% (111/120] vs. 90% (108/120]), but there was a slightly higher positive rate for LRE (88.3% (53/60]) than MBTE (81.7% (49/60]) among pooled saliva. The automated LRE method is comparable to a standard MBTE method for the detection of SAR-CoV-2 in pooled specimens, providing a suitable alternative automated extraction platform. Furthermore, LRE may be better suited for pooled saliva specimens due to more efficient removal of RT-PCR inhibitors.

    Search related documents: