scholarly journals Development of the one-step qualitative RT-PCR assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant in respiratory specimens

Author(s):  
Tung Phan ◽  
Stephanie Boes ◽  
Melissa McCullough ◽  
Jamie Gribschaw ◽  
Alan Wells

A new SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant of Concern has been emerging worldwide. We are seeing an unprecedented surge in patients due to Omicron in this COVID-19 pandemic. A rapid and accurate molecular test that effectively differentiates Omicron from other SARS-CoV-2 variants would be important for both epidemiologic value and for directing variant-specific therapies such as monoclonal antibody infusions. In this study, we developed a real-time RT-PCR assay for the qualitative detection of Omicron from routine clinical specimens sampling the upper respiratory tract. The limit of detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant RT-PCR assay was 2 copies/μl. Notably, the assay did not show any cross-reactivity with other SARS-CoV-2 variants including Delta (B.1.617.2). This SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant RT-PCR laboratory-developed assay is sensitive and specific to detect Omicron in nasopharyngeal and nasal swab specimens.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tung Phan ◽  
Ashley Mays ◽  
Melissa McCullough ◽  
Alan Wells

Accurate and rapid laboratory tests are essential for the prompt diagnosis of COVID-19, which is important to patients and infection control. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test is a real-time RT-PCR intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in upper respiratory specimens. In this study, we assessed the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of this rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 in 60 bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens. BAL is a specimen type that is not authorized under EUA for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test. The limit of detection of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test was 500 copies/ml. The overall agreement of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test was 100%. The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test is sensitive and specific to aid in diagnosis of COVID-19 using bronchoalveolar lavage.


2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 003685042110261
Author(s):  
Sungwoo Choi ◽  
Hyo Jeong Choi ◽  
Ho Jung Kim

The most common method for SARS-CoV-2 testing is throat or nasal swabbing by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. In South Korea, drive-through swab test is used for screening system and community treatment centers (CTCs), which admit and treat confirmed COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms, are being used. This retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to a CTC on March 6, 2020. A total of 313 patients were admitted. The nasal and throat swabs were collected from the upper respiratory tract, and a sputum test was performed to obtain lower respiratory samples. The positive rate of the first set of test, sputum test was higher than that of the swab test ( p = 0.011). In the second set of test, 1 week after the first ones, the rate of positive swab tests was relatively high ( p = 0.026). In the first set of test, 66 of 152 (43.4%) patients showed 24-h consecutive negative swab test results, when the sputum test results were considered together, that number fell to 29 patients (19.1%) ( p < 0.001). Also, in the second set of test, 63 of 164 (38.4%) patients met the discharge criteria only when the swab test was considered; that number fell to 30 (18.3%) when the sputum test results were also considered ( p < 0.001). Using the swab test alone is insufficient for screening test and discharge decision. Patients who may have positive result in the sputum test can be missed.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Islam Hamed ◽  
Nesreen Shaban ◽  
Marwan Nassar ◽  
Sam Love ◽  
Martin D Curran ◽  
...  

Introduction Samples for diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 can be obtained from the upper (nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs) or lower respiratory tract (sputum or tracheal aspirate or broncho-alveolar lavage - BAL). Data from different testing sites indicates different rates of positivity. Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) allows for semi-quantitative estimates of viral load as time to crossing threshold (Ct) is inversely related to viral load. Objectives The objective of our study was to evaluate SARS-CoV2 RNA loads between paired nasopharyngeal (NP) and deep lung (endotracheal aspirate or BAL) samples from critically ill patients. Methods SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results were retrospectively reviewed for 51 critically ill patients from 5 intensive care units in 3 hospitals ; Addenbrookes Hospital Cambridge (3 units), Royal Papworth Cambridge (1 unit), and Royal Sunderland Hospital (1 unit). At the times when paired NP and deep lung samples were obtained, one patient had been on oxygen only, 6 patients on non-invasive ventilation, 18 patients on ECMO, and 26 patients mechanically ventilated. Results Results collected showed significant gradient between NP and deep lung viral loads. Median Ct value was 29 for NP samples and 24 for deep lung samples. Of 51 paired samples, 16 were negative (below limit of detection) on NP swabs but positive (above limit of detection) on deep lung sample, whilst 2 were negative on deep sample but positive on NP (both patients were on ECMO). Conclusions It has been suggested that whilst SARS-CoV1 tends to replicate in the lower respiratory tract, SARS-CoV2 replicates more vigorously in the upper respiratory tract. These data challenge that assumption. These data suggest that viral migration to, and proliferation in, the lower respiratory tract may be a key factor in the progression to critical illness and the development of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Factors which promote this migration should be examined for association with severe COVID-19. From a practical point of view, patients with suspected severe COVID-19 should have virological samples obtained from the lower respiratory tract where-ever possible, as upper respiratory samples have a significant negative rate.


PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashi Gautam ◽  
Slavica Mijatovic-Rustempasic ◽  
Mathew D. Esona ◽  
Ka Ian Tam ◽  
Osbourne Quaye ◽  
...  

Background.Group A rotavirus (RVA) infection is the major cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in young children worldwide. Introduction of two live-attenuated rotavirus vaccines, RotaTeq® and Rotarix®, has dramatically reduced RVA associated AGE and mortality in developed as well as in many developing countries. High-throughput methods are needed to genotype rotavirus wild-type strains and to identify vaccine strains in stool samples. Quantitative RT-PCR assays (qRT-PCR) offer several advantages including increased sensitivity, higher throughput, and faster turnaround time.Methods.In this study, a one-step multiplex qRT-PCR assay was developed to detect and genotype wild-type strains and vaccine (Rotarix® and RotaTeq®) rotavirus strains along with an internal processing control (Xeno or MS2 RNA). Real-time RT-PCR assays were designed for VP7 (G1, G2, G3, G4, G9, G12) and VP4 (P[4], P[6] and P[8]) genotypes. The multiplex qRT-PCR assay also included previously published NSP3 qRT-PCR for rotavirus detection and Rotarix® NSP2 and RotaTeq® VP6 qRT-PCRs for detection of Rotarix® and RotaTeq® vaccine strains respectively. The multiplex qRT-PCR assay was validated using 853 sequence confirmed stool samples and 24 lab cultured strains of different rotavirus genotypes. By using thermostablerTthpolymerase enzyme, dsRNA denaturation, reverse transcription (RT) and amplification (PCR) steps were performed in single tube by uninterrupted thermocycling profile to reduce chances of sample cross contamination and for rapid generation of results. For quantification, standard curves were generated using dsRNA transcripts derived from RVA gene segments.Results.The VP7 qRT-PCRs exhibited 98.8–100% sensitivity, 99.7–100% specificity, 85–95% efficiency and a limit of detection of 4–60 copies per singleplex reaction. The VP7 qRT-PCRs exhibited 81–92% efficiency and limit of detection of 150–600 copies in multiplex reactions. The VP4 qRT-PCRs exhibited 98.8–100% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 86–89% efficiency and a limit of detection of 12–400 copies per singleplex reactions. The VP4 qRT-PCRs exhibited 82–90% efficiency and limit of detection of 120–4000 copies in multiplex reaction.Discussion.The one-step multiplex qRT-PCR assay will facilitate high-throughput rotavirus genotype characterization for monitoring circulating rotavirus wild-type strains causing rotavirus infections, determining the frequency of Rotarix® and RotaTeq® vaccine strains and vaccine-derived reassortants associated with AGE, and help to identify novel rotavirus strains derived by reassortment between vaccine and wild-type strains.


2021 ◽  
Vol 156 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S9-S9
Author(s):  
Matthew M Hernandez ◽  
Radhika Banu ◽  
Paras Shrestha ◽  
Armi Patel ◽  
Feng Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has accelerated the need for rapid validation and implementation of assays for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in diagnostic specimens. Multiple molecular methods have received emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in upper respiratory specimens, with testing of nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens serving as the foundation for these assays. However, supply chain constraints and the need for improved ease and safety of collection have prompted consideration of other specimen types as alternatives to NP specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared two methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva: the Roche cobas® 6800 SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR Test (“Roche”), which tests for viral ORF1ab (target 1, T1) and envelope E genes (target 2, T2); and the Agena Biosciences MassARRAY® SARS-CoV-2 Panel/MassARRAY® System (“Agena”), which tests for targets in the ORF1ab gene (ORF1, Orf1ab) and nucleocapsid N gene (N1, N2, N3). Methods Sixty saliva specimens collected within 48 hours of SARS-CoV-2 detection in an upper respiratory (anterior nares or NP) specimen from the same individual were tested in both the Roche and Agena platforms. Each system was evaluated for overall detection results and agreement with results of matched upper respiratory specimens. In addition, we determined the limit of detection (LoD) for each system and its component targets using an in-house SARS-CoV-2 standard generated from pooled positive saliva specimens quantitated against a commercially available standard (ZeptoMetrix NATSARS(COV2)-ERC). Results Both platforms demonstrated a similarly high sensitivity (97%) and specificity (100%) when compared to matched patient upper respiratory specimens and had high agreement with one another (Cohen’s κ = 0.9321, p = 2.6x10-13). Overall, the LoD (copies/mL) for the Roche assay was four times lower than that of Agena for saliva specimens (390.6 v. 1562.5). Furthermore, we determined that the LoD differed among the target components of each assay. The experimental LoD was comparable across Roche targets, but probit analyses indicate T2 has greater sensitivity (LoD: 228.6), Of the five Agena targets, the N2 target had the lowest LoD (1562.5). Conclusions In sum, we demonstrate that saliva is an acceptable specimen for testing in both the Roche cobas® 6800 SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR Test and the Agena Biosciences MassARRAY® SARS-CoV-2 Panel/MassARRAY® System, and both provide sensitive and specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens. Although there was a high level of agreement between platforms, the LoD was lower for the Roche compared to the Agena assay with T2 and N2 being the most sensitive targets on each platform, respectively. The addition of saliva as an acceptable specimen and understanding the sensitivity for testing on these platforms can further inform public health measures for screening and detection to combat the pandemic.


Author(s):  
Ranawaka APM Perera ◽  
Eugene Tso ◽  
Owen TY Tsang ◽  
Dominic NC Tsang ◽  
Kitty Fung ◽  
...  

In 68 respiratory specimens from a cohort of 35 COVID-19 patients, 32 of them with mild disease, we found SARS coronavirus-2 virus culture and sub-genomic RNA was rarely detectable beyond 8 days after onset of illness although virus RNA by RT-PCR remained detectable for many weeks.


Author(s):  
Katherine Graham ◽  
Stephanie Loeb ◽  
Marlene Wolfe ◽  
David Catoe ◽  
Nasa Sinnott-Armstrong ◽  
...  

Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) may be useful for informing public health response to viral diseases like COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2. We quantified SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater influent and primary settled solids in two wastewater treatment plants to inform the pre-analytical and analytical approaches, and to assess whether influent or solids harbored more viral targets. The primary settled solids samples resulted in higher SARS-CoV-2 detection frequencies than the corresponding influent samples. Likewise, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was more readily detected in solids using one-step digital droplet (dd)RT-PCR than with two-step RT-QPCR and two-step ddRT-PCR, likely owing to reduced inhibition with the one-step ddRT-PCR assay. We subsequently analyzed a longitudinal time series of 89 settled solids samples from a single plant for SARS-CoV-2 RNA as well as coronavirus recovery (bovine coronavirus) and fecal strength (pepper mild mottle virus, PMMoV) controls. SARS-CoV-2 RNA targets N1 and N2 concentrations correlate positively and significantly with COVID-19 clinical confirmed case counts in the sewershed. Together, the results demonstrate that measuring SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in settled solids may be a more sensitive approach than measuring SARs-CoV-2 in influent.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Laverack ◽  
Rebecca L. Tallmadge ◽  
Roopa Venugopalan ◽  
Brittany Cronk ◽  
XiuLin Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract The aim of this study was to identify and validate a sensitive, high-throughput and cost-effective SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay to be used as a surveillance and diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2 in a University surveillance program. We conducted a side-by-side clinical evaluation of a newly developed SARS-CoV-2 multiplex assay (EZ-SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-PCR) with the commercial TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit, which has an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. The EZ-SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR incorporates two assays targeting the SARS-CoV-2 N gene, an internal control targeting the human RNase P gene, and a PCR inhibition control in a single reaction. Nasopharyngeal (NP) and anterior nares (AN) swabs were tested as individuals and pools with both assays and in the ABI 7500 Fast and the QuantStudio 5 detection platforms. The EZ-SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay analytical sensitivity was 250 copies/ml or approximately 1.75 genome copy equivalents per reaction. Clinical performance of the EZ-SARS-CoV-2 assay was determined using NP and AN samples tested in other laboratories. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assay ranged between 94 and 96% across the detection platforms, and the diagnostic specificity was 94.06%. The positive predictive value was 94% and the negative predictive value ranged from 94 to 96%. Pooling five NP or AN specimens yielded 93% diagnostic sensitivity. The overall agreement between these SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays was high, supported by Cohen’s kappa value of 0.93. The EZ-SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay performance attributes of high sensitivity, excellent performance in AN sample matrix and in pooled upper respiratory samples support its use in a high-throughput surveillance testing program.


Author(s):  
Nicholas M. Moore ◽  
Haiying Li ◽  
Debra Schejbal ◽  
Jennifer Lindsley ◽  
Mary K. Hayden

ABSTRACTWe compared the ability of 2 commercial molecular amplification assays [RealTime SARS-CoV-2 on the m2000 (Abbott) and ID NOW™ COVID-19 (Abbott)] and a laboratory-developed test [modified CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay with RNA extraction by eMag® (bioMérieux) and amplification on QuantStudio™ 6 or ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Life Technologies)] to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in upper respiratory tract specimens. Discrepant results were adjudicated by medical record review. 200 nasopharyngeal swab specimens in viral transport medium (VTM) were collected from symptomatic patients between March 27 and April 9, 2020. Results were concordant for 167 specimens (83.5% overall agreement), including 94 positive and 73 negative specimens. The RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the m2000 yielded 33 additional positive results, 25 of which were also positive by the modified CDC assay but not by the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay. In a follow-up evaluation, 97 patients for whom a dry nasal swab specimen yielded negative results by the ID NOW™ COVID-19 assay had a paired nasopharyngeal swab specimen collected in VTM and tested by the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay; SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 13 (13.4%) of these specimens. Medical record review deemed all discrepant results to be true positives. The ID NOW™ COVID-19 test was the easiest to perform and provided a result in the shortest time: as soon as 5 minutes for positive and 13 minutes for negative result. The RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the m2000 detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the modified CDC assay or the ID NOW™ COVID-19 test.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document