Abstract
The World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and the development of reliable laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 became mandatory to identify, isolate and provide optimized care for patients early. RT-qPCR testing of respiratory secretions is routinely used to detect causative viruses in acute respiratory infection. RT-qPCR in-house protocols to detect the SARS-CoV-2 have been described. Validations of these protocols are considered a key knowledge gap for COVID-19, especially if executed in a high throughput format. Here, we investigate the analytical sensitivity and specificity of two interim RT-qPCR protocols for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 executed in a fully automated platform. Under our conditions, the N1 and RdRP (modified) showed the highest analytical sensitivity for their RNA targets. E assay, in its original concentration, was considered a tertiary confirmatory assay. Taken together, N1, RdRP (optimized) and E presented appropriated analytical sensibility and specificity in our automated RT-qPCR workflow for COVID-19 virus, E being at least 4-fold less sensitive than the others. This study highlights the importance of local validation of in-house assays before its availability to the population. The use of the synthetic RT-qPCR target to investigate novel assays diagnostic parameters in automated workflows is a quick, simple effective way to be prepared for upcoming threats. The proposed assay detected the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazilian Central-West.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Sabin Laboratory funding 0001
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Not applied
