Author: Dong, Lianhua; Zhou, Junbo; Niu, Chunyan; Wang, Quanyi; Pan, Yang; Sheng, Sitong; Wang, Xia; Zhang, Yongzhuo; Yang, Jiayi; Liu, Manqing; Zhao, Yang; Zhang, Xiaoying; Zhu, Tao; Peng, Tao; Xie, Jie; Gao, Yunhua; Wang, Di; Zhao, Yun; Dai, Xinhua; Fang, Xiang
Title: Highly accurate and sensitive diagnostic detection of SARS-CoV-2 by digital PCR Cord-id: aa7slcnc Document date: 2020_3_18
ID: aa7slcnc
Snippet: BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID-19 caused by a novel Coronavirus (termed SARS-CoV-2) has spread to over 140 countries around the world. Currently, reverse transcription quantitative qPCR (RT-qPCR) is used as the gold standard for diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2. However, the positive rate of RT-qPCR assay of pharyngeal swab samples are reported to vary from 30~60%. More accurate and sensitive methods are urgently needed to support the quality assurance of the RT-qPCR or as an alternative diagnostic
Document: BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID-19 caused by a novel Coronavirus (termed SARS-CoV-2) has spread to over 140 countries around the world. Currently, reverse transcription quantitative qPCR (RT-qPCR) is used as the gold standard for diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2. However, the positive rate of RT-qPCR assay of pharyngeal swab samples are reported to vary from 30~60%. More accurate and sensitive methods are urgently needed to support the quality assurance of the RT-qPCR or as an alternative diagnostic approach. METHODS:We established a reverse transcription digital PCR (RT-dPCR) protocol to detect SARS-CoV-2 on 194 clinical pharyngeal swab samples, including 103 suspected patients, 75 close contacts and 16 supposed convalescents. RESULTS: The limit of blanks (LoBs) of the RT-dPCR assays were ~1.6, ~1.6 and ~0.8 copies/reaction for ORF 1ab, N and E genes, respectively. The limit of detection (LoD) was 2 copies/reaction. For the 103 fever suspected patients, the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection was significantly improved from 28.2% by RT-qPCR to 87.4% by RT-dPCR. For close contacts, the suspect rate was greatly decreased from 21% down to 1%. The overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of RT-dPCR were 90%, 100% and 93 %, respectively. In addition, quantification of the viral load for convalescents by RT-dPCR showed that a longer observation period was needed in the hospital for elderly patients. CONCLUSION: RT-dPCR could be a confirmatory method for suspected patients diagnosed by RT-qPCR. Furthermore, RT-dPCR was more sensitive and suitable for low viral load specimens from the both patients under isolation and those under observation who may not be exhibiting clinical symptoms.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- accuracy improve and low positive rate: 1
- accuracy improve and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3
- accuracy sensitivity and lod detection limit: 1, 2, 3, 4
- accuracy sensitivity and low concentration: 1, 2, 3
- accuracy sensitivity and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- accurate highly sensitive and lod detection limit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- accurate highly sensitive and low sensitivity: 1
- accurate sensitive and lod detection limit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- accurate sensitive and low concentration: 1
- accurate sensitive and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- accurate sensitive test and low sensitivity: 1
- acid molecule and low concentration: 1
- lob blank limit and lod detection limit: 1, 2, 3, 4
- lod detection limit and low concentration: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- lod detection limit and low sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- lod detection limit determine and low concentration: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date