Abstract
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, there is need for sensitive, specific and affordable diagnostic tests to identify infected individuals, not all of whom are symptomatic. The most sensitive test involves the detection of viral RNA using RT-qPCR, with many commercial kits now available for this purpose. However, these are expensive and supply of such kits in sufficient numbers cannot always be guaranteed. We therefore developed a multiplex assay using well-established SARS-CoV-2 targets alongside internal controls that monitor sample quality and nucleic acid extraction efficiency. Here, we establish that this test performs as well as widely used commercial assays, but at substantially reduced cost. Furthermore, we demonstrate >1,000-fold variability in material routinely collected by nose-and-throat swabbing. The inclusion of a human control probe in our assay provides additional information that could help reduce false negative rates.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic originated in Wuhan (China) in December 2019 and at the time of writing has infected more than 13.1 million people worldwide, resulting in well over 0.57 million COVID-19- related deaths. In many countries the number of active cases is now declining, largely due to increased public awareness and effective public health strategies centred on reducing the rate of transmission. However, the number of cases worldwide is still on the increase with around 100,000 new cases recorded every day at the beginning of June and more than 200,000 new daily cases since the beginning of July. Many of these new infections are now occurring in lower-middle-income countries. Also, as lockdown measures are widely being eased there is an increased risk of a renewed rise in infection rates, as evidenced by current trends observed in e.g. Iran and the USA. Therefore, effective and affordable testing strategies to enable effective and widespread population surveillance will continue to be important. The most sensitive test to diagnose infected individuals involves the detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA using RT-qPCR, most commonly using samples collected using nasopharyngeal (nose-and-throat) swabs, although there is increasing evidence that the use of saliva may be a valid alternative [1]. Many commercial kits are now available, most of which employ multiplex RT-qPCR detecting 2 or 3 different SARS-CoV-2 targets, and generally include an internal control to show successful nucleic acid extraction. However, such kits are often costly and their supply in sufficient numbers cannot always be guaranteed. We therefore developed a similar multiplex assay using well-established SARS-CoV-2 targets and internal controls, which can be carried out at a significantly lower cost and provides more flexibility to ensure resilience against potential shortages in reagent supplies.
Our assay makes use of the Takara One Step PrimeScript III RT-qPCR kit. This reagent was used in the first high profile publication to describe the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV [2], also referred to as SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. It has since been shown to outperform a number of other similar reagents [3]. Before commercial COVID-19 assays were available, a number of in-house assays were published on the WHO website [4]. Based on the data available at the time, we decided to focus our initial efforts on targeting the following SARS-CoV-2 genes: E (envelope), RdRp (RNA- dependent RNA polymerase) and N (nucleocapsid) [5, 6]. Corman et al (2020) proposed the E gene as a useful target for first line screening, with the RdRp gene suggested as a good target for confirmatory/discriminatory assays [7, 8]. The N gene was central to the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in vitro diagnostics emergency protocol, with three different primer/probe sets used against different portions of this viral gene [4]. The CDC protocol also included a probe against human RPP30, a single copy gene encoding the protein subunit p30 of the Ribonuclease (RNase) P particle, to ensure the presence of a sufficient number of cells in patient samples and successful isolation of intact nucleic acids.
In early versions of these protocols, all probes were labelled with fluorescein amidite (FAM), and separate reactions were therefore needed to detect each target. To increase efficiency, we developed a multiplex assay using 4 different fluorescent labels (FAM, HEX, CAL Fluor Red 610 and Quasar 670) for each of the probes, allowing their detection in a single reaction. In the final version of our assay, we use previously described primers and probes against the well-established SARS-CoV- 2 E and N gene targets, as well as two internal controls: human RPP30 and Phocine Herpes Virus 1 (PhHV-1, hereafter referred to as PhHV). The rationale behind the human cellular control is that a considerable number of patients with clinical and radiological signs of COVID-19 are PCR negative; and the poor quality of swab samples with no or little usable patient material is one possible explanation for this [9]. In essence, the RPP30 control provides a measure of sample quality. In addition, a defined amount of PhHV (resulting in a known Ct value) is spiked into each sample with the lysis buffer at the start of the nucleic acid isolation procedure. Detection of PhHV (using the Glycoprotein B gene as a target) simultaneously controls for extraction and amplification efficiency, as well as ensuring the sample does not contain PCR inhibitors [10, 11].
If paired with an in-house RNA extraction protocol, our assay can be performed for less than £2 (∼2.50 USD) per test, excluding cost of plastics consumables, which could mean a potential 10-fold difference in cost compared to commercial kits. Here we present data that demonstrates equivalent performance to the commercial TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (CE-IVD; Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay. We also document the utility of inclusion of RPP30 as a human internal control to provide sample quality information.
Results
N and E gene assays sensitively detect viral RNA
We initially tested qPCR methods for E, RdRp, N1 and N2 in uniplex and duplex assays, the latter in combination with the RPP30 (HEX) internal control. Whereas we were able to detect as few as 10 copies of positive control RNA for E, N1 and N2, and control DNA for RPP30, the detection limit for RdRp was only ∼100 copies. Nonetheless, each assay was able to correctly identify positive (n=4) and negative (n=1) patient samples (data not shown). We then tested three different 4-plex strategies. All made use of RPP30 (HEX) and PhHV (Cy5) probes for use as internal controls (controlling for the presence of human cells in patient samples, and successful nucleic acid isolation, respectively), as well as a CFR-labelled (CAL Fluor Red 610) probe for the SARS-CoV-2 E gene. A FAM-labelled probe against a second SARS-CoV-2 target was included in each of the three assays: RdRp, N1 or N2 (N gene). Initial validation tests with these RdRp+E+RPP30+PhHV (RdE-RP), N1+E+RPP30+PhHV (N1E- RP) and N2+E+RPP30+PhHV (N2E-RP) 4-plex assays were performed on cultured virus controls (kindly provided by Rory Gunson, Glasgow, UK). Two independent RNA isolations were performed for the cultured virus, with each used for triplicate RT-qPCR reactions. The resulting Ct values (average ± SD for the independent isolations) showed that sensitivity of detection was similar for E gene (Ct 21.1 ± 0.55), N1 (22.3 ± 0.04) and N2 (Ct 21.1 ± 0.46), whereas RdRp detection was much less sensitive (Ct 26.9 ± 0.25). Very similar results were obtained using the TaqPath COVID-19 assay, which detects N gene, S gene and Orf1ab, with Ct values of 22.2, 22.5 and 21.8 respectively.
All three assays were also used to test SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patient samples (n=19), and compared to the TaqPath COVID-19 assay (performed in our laboratory on the ABI 7500 system) and the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (performed in a different COVID-19 diagnostics centre, using the M2000 system; detects RdRp and N gene). The N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays both correctly identified all 9 samples that had tested positive using the commercial TaqPath and Abbott assays (Table S1). The RdE-RP assay performed less well, identifying 7 of these samples correctly, giving inconclusive results for the other two (P18 and 19): only E gene was detected, but not RdRp. This is consistent with the lower sensitivity of the RdRp assay and the fact that these samples gave the highest Ct values in the other assays. In addition, both N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays identified positive samples that scored negative with the commercial tests, suggesting potentially higher sensitivity of our assays. Of the 10 patient samples that were negative for the Abbott assay, 9 were similarly shown to be negative using the N1E-RP assay, whereas 8 of these were negative for the N2E-RP assay. Patient 12 had previously tested negative using both Abbott and TaqPath assays, and was also negative for N1E-RP; however, this sample tested weakly positive for both COVID-19 targets in the N2E-RP assay. Patient 11, had previously tested negative using the Abbott assay, was inconclusive with TaqPath (1 of 3 COVID-19 targets detected) and also inconclusive with N2E-RP (1 of 2 targets detected), but positive for both targets in the N1E-RP assay. Ct values were high for both P11 and P12, likely indicating low viral load, close to the limit of detection, although we cannot technically exclude the possibility that these were false positives.
Our data show that the RdE-RP assay is significantly less sensitive than the N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays, largely due to the relatively low sensitivity of RdRp detection (>20-fold less sensitive), consistent with a recent report [12]. In contrast the N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays were at least as sensitive as two commercial assays, TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2. For further validation experiments we therefore focussed on the N1E- RP and N2E-RP assays.
Multiplex assays for N and E genes can detect between 1 and 50 RNA copies
To determine the detection limit for our N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays, in vitro transcribed RNA controls for each of the SARS-CoV-2 targets were prepared. An equimolar mix was used to make a dilution series (2,000, 200, 20, 10, 2 and 0.2 copies/µl) and each of these processed using our nucleic acid isolation protocol. Both extracted and original dilutions were tested in triplicate, enabling us to determine Ct values for 10,000 copies down to 1 copy (10-fold serial dilutions) before and after RNA isolation; a 50 copy control was also included. All probes (E, N1 and N2) reproducibly detected RNA down to 50 copies both pre and post-extraction, although Ct values post-extraction were generally slightly higher (Fig 1A and Table S2). Whereas the N1 probe detected 10 copies reproducibly in both extracted and original dilutions (6 out of 6; 6/6), the N2 probe only detected 10 copies in some reactions (4/6); the E probe detected 10 copies reproducibly in the N2E-RP assay (6/6), but it only picked up 10 copies in half of the N1E-RP reactions (3/6). As would be expected, single copies of RNA were only picked up in a small proportion of reactions for each of the probes: E (2/12), N1 (3/6) and N2 (1/6). The RPP30 internal control also detected as few as 10 copies of a positive control (Fig S1), showing that signal for this probe represents a good measure of the presence of intact cellular nucleic acids in the patient sample. Our assays therefore have the sensitivity to detect between 1 and 50 copies of RNA (Fig 1 and Table S2).
A, B: 1 to 10,000 copies of SARS-CoV-2 control RNA (IVT, in vitro transcribed) were used for N1E-RP and N2E-RP RT-qPCR assays before and after nucleic acid extraction.
C: RNA was isolated from cultured SARS-CoV-2, a serial dilution prepared, and re-extracted. N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays were performed before and after re-extraction. Mean ± SD for technical triplicates shown for each (A-C), along with trend line equations and R2 values (B,C). Also, see Table S2 and S3.
To confirm sensitivity using total viral RNA, nucleic acids isolated from cultured SARS-CoV-2 were also used to make a dilution series (10−1 to 10−6). Nucleic acids from this dilution series were re- extracted, and dilution series before and after re-extraction were tested in the N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays. Sensitivity of detection for these samples was highest for E gene, followed by N1 and N2 (Fig 1C and Table S3). Signal was lost for the 10−5 dilution in most cases, consistent with the Ct values of the neat sample (21.3-23.4) and the 100,000-fold reduction in copy number for this dilution (theoretically predicted Ct values, ∼38-40). For all extractions and RT-qPCR replicates the signal for the PhHV spike in was highly reproducible, with a Ct value of 32.5 ± 0.40 (mean ± SD, range 30.7- 33.0), indicating robust extraction efficiency and absence of PCR inhibitors.
N1E-RP and N2E-RP multiplex assays correctly identify positive patient samples
Next, to confirm reproducibility, the N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays were performed on an additional 89 patient samples, with results compared to the TaqPath assay. The patient samples contained both SARS-CoV-2 positives and negatives, and were tested blind. For all samples, the lysis buffer was spiked with MS2 and PhHV controls, internal controls for the TaqPath and N1E-RP/N2E-RP assays respectively. In addition, the same three controls were performed for each assay: an extracted viral transport medium control (negative for SARS-CoV-2 and RPP30, positive for PhHV), a non-extracted water only control (negative for all targets) and a non-extracted in vitro transcribed RNA positive control (50 copies; positive for SARS-CoV-2, negative for RPP30 and PhHV).
All positive and negative controls gave the expected results (Table S4). The PhHV control worked for all samples, with consistent Ct values for both the N1E-RP (32.5 ± 1.1) and the N2E-RP assay (33.3 ± 1.2; Table S4, Fig S2A), confirming reliable and reproducible extraction of nucleic acids from patient samples. Reassuringly, the variability for PhHV in our assays was in the same range as that of the MS2 control used in the TaqPath kit (mean Ct value, 25.6 ± 0.9; Table S4, Fig S2A). Out of the 89 samples, the TaqPath assay identified 75 samples as negative, 1 as inconclusive and 13 as positive. Both the N1E-RP and N2E-RP assay detected the same 13 positive samples, and the majority of TaqPath negative samples were similarly negative in our assays (n=74). For the N1E-RP assay 6 of the negative samples had Ct values between 39.0 and 43.2 for N1 (E gene not detected), suggesting potentially higher sensitivity of the N1 probe in this assay. The sample that was inconclusive for TaqPath (P75) was positive for both N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays, consistent with this being a true positive. In addition, there was one sample (P53) that was negative with TaqPath, but positive for both N1E-RP and N2-ERP, albeit with very high Ct values (between 35.7 and 39.2), close to the limit of detection.
In addition to the patient samples (n=108 total), 8 quality control samples from Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (QCMD, an external quality assessment organisation) were also tested. All assays (N1E-RP, N2E-RP and TaqPath) gave the same results for the QCMD control samples: 5 tested positive and 3 negative. These results are as expected when compared to the sample identities and data provided by QCMD (Table 1, Fig S3). Altogether, our data establish that the sensitivity of the N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays is similar to that of the TaqPath assay (Fig 2).
A: The Taqpath, N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays each identified a similar numbers of positives and negatives among 108 patient samples. Inconclusive: only one of the SARS-CoV-2 targets was detected.
B, C: Ct values for each of the SARS-CoV-2 targets in the TaqPath (N, Orf1ab, S), N1E-RP (N1, E) and N2E-RP (N2, E) are very similar (for n=24-26 positive patients). In B, mean ± SEM of individual patient data points. Also, see Table S1 and S4.
The human RPP30 control demonstrates substantial variability with >1,000-fold difference in patient material in swabs
In contrast to consistent Ct values for the PhHV internal control, indicating reproducible nucleic acid extraction, the range of Ct values for the human RPP30 control was much greater, consistent with considerable variability in the amount of usable material present in different patient samples (Table S4, Fig 3 and S1B). Although, the RPP30 control worked for all samples, Ct values ranged from 20.3 to 31.7 for the N1E-RP assay and from 20.3 to 32.1 for the N2E-RP assay. This equates to a difference of between 2,700 and 3,700-fold in extracted nucleic acids between the best and the worst samples. This could mean that compared to a sample of high quality (lowest RPP30 Ct) with a theoretical SARS-CoV-2 Ct value of 28.6, a sample from the same patient of low quality (highest RPP30 Ct) would not be picked up as positive, assuming a SARS-CoV-2 detection limit of 40. The absence of a “sample quality” control such as RPP30 therefore substantially increases the chance of false negative test results when working with suboptimal samples. Complete absence of RPP30 signal (undetected or Ct >40) clearly indicates that the test result cannot be interpreted and that a repeat test is therefore required. However, utilising RPP30 Ct values when interpreting an apparent SARS-CoV-2 negative sample requires some consideration: what should the RPP30 Ct limit be for which to order a repeat test? One option would be to simply set an arbitrary cut-off, e.g. one could decide to re-test any samples with RPP30 Ct >30, or with Ct values outside the 95% confidence interval. To determine a robust cut-off limit, collection of RPP30 data for a much larger number of patient samples would be desirable. Nonetheless, RPP30 data, as it stands, can be useful with the interpretation of cases for which only one of the SARS-CoV-2 targets is (weakly) positive, to prompt potential resampling to obtain a definitive result. False negative test results are an important ongoing issue. Low sample quality, for example in case of self-sampling, is one possible reason for this. Systematic inclusion of an internal human control to provide sample quality metrics, could therefore be an important step to reduce the number of false negatives.
A, B: RPP30 Ct values for 108 patient samples ranked from low to high (based on N1E-RP ranks) for N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays. SARS-CoV-2 positives marked in red.
C, D: Comparison of actual (Act) and RPP30-normalised (Norm) Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 targets (normalised: ΔCt compared to lowest RPP30 Ct subtracted from SARS-CoV-2 Ct value)
Conclusion
Here, we describe a user-friendly protocol for an accurate and affordable SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR test. We provide detailed materials and methods to enable others to rapidly set up this assay in their own laboratory or to adapt it to locally available equipment and reagents. Our assays have high analytical sensitivity, equivalent to commercial CE-IVD kits. Ultimately, the clinical sensitivity of any of these diagnostic tests is influenced by multiple factors, including sample timing relative to symptom onset, sample type and sample quality. The inclusion of a human control (RPP30) in our assays provides an internal sample quality control that will aid interpretation of test results, and should contribute to reducing false negative results.
Materials and Methods
Methodological flexibility and improvements
The methods below describe the materials and methods we employed in the development and testing of our assays. There should be some flexibility in terms of the precise reagents and instruments used to perform these multiplex RT-qPCR assays. For example, many companies are able to synthesise high-quality primers and probes with different labels, and alternative Real-Time PCR machines can be used, as long as they are able to detect different channels simultaneously and have been calibrated. A different spike-in to our PhHV control could be used, e.g. lentiviral particles with a GFP transgene and primers/probe targeting GFP would be one option. Also, it is likely that further improvements can be made to our protocol, either generally or to match with local requirements/capabilities. For example, the use of control primers/probe specific to a human RNA transcript (the RPP30 primers/probe described here detect both RNA and genomic DNA) would give even greater confidence in sample quality, i.e. ensuring that it contains intact RNA. However, it should be stressed that any changes to the protocol may change the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection, and this should be checked using a thorough validation procedure (e.g. as described here) before using these methods for diagnostic purposes.
Patient samples
Samples were collected from symptomatic individuals by trained healthcare professionals using combined nose-and-throat swabbing, and processed for diagnostic testing using validated CE-IVD assays. Excess samples were then used to validate the in-house multiplex assays, with specimen anonymization by coding, compliant with Tissue Governance for the South East Scotland Scottish Academic Health Sciences Collaboration Human Annotated BioResource (reference no. SR1452). A variety of swabs and viral transport media (VTM) were used. In each case, swabs were placed in VTM and kept at ambient temperature until processed (within 24 h).
Nucleic Acid isolation
For all assays shown in this work, nucleic acids were isolated using the Omega Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Cat. No. M6246), using the Supplementary Protocol for NP Swabs (April 2020 version). Briefly, 200 µl VTM was taken from patient swab sample inside a Class-2 safety cabinet and mixed with 240 µl TNA Lysis Buffer, 1 µl carrier RNA and extraction controls (MS2 and PhHV) in screw capped tubes, for virus inactivation. After incubation at room temperature for at least 15 min, samples were transferred from tubes into 96-well KingFisher Deep well plates (Cat. No. 95040450) containing 280 µl isopropanol and 2 µl Mag-Bind Particles per well, using a Biomek NXP Automated Liquid Handler (Beckman Coulter). Plates were then moved and the isolation completed on a KingFisher Flex robot (Cat. No. 5400610) as instructed by the manufacturer, including washes with 350 μL VHB Buffer and 2x 350 μL SPR Buffer, and RNA finally eluted in 50 µl of nuclease-free water in KingFisher 96 microplates (Cat. No. 97002540). Also see Supplementary Material, Protocol 2.
An in-house version of a magnetic bead based isolation was tested and shown to perform similarly in preliminary experiments (data not shown). The use of this protocol could further reduce the cost per test, but would require additional validation. For details of this RNA isolation protocol, see Supplementary Material, Protocol 2.
Primers and probes
Primers and probes (Table 2) were synthesised and HPLC purified by LGC BioSearch Technologies (Risskov, Denmark), and dissolved in IDTE (10 mM Tris, 0.1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) to prepare 100 μM stocks. Pre-prepared primer/probe mixes (FAM-labelled) for N1, N2 and RPP30 were obtained from Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT, USA; Cat. No. 10006713). Since we developed our assay, N1, N2 and RPP30 primers and probes also became available from IDT as 100 μM stocks, but can also be purchased from many other reputable oligonucleotide synthesis companies. All nucleic acid stocks and dilutions were prepared in Eppendorf DNA LoBind tubes (Cat. No. 10051232).
Primer/probe mixes (50x) were prepared for E gene (20 µM E_Sarbeco_F1, 20 µM E_Sarbeco_R2, 10 µM TxRd_E_Sarbeco_P1), RdRp (30 µM RdRp_SARSr-F2, 40 µM RdRp_SARSr-R2, 10 µM FAM_RdRp_SARSr-P2), RPP30 (25 µM Hs_RPP30-F, 25 µM Hs_RPP30-R, 6.25 µM HEX-Hs_RPP30-P) and PhHV (15 µM PhHV-F, 15 µM PhHV-R, 5 µM Cy5-PhHV-P). The N1 and N2 primers/probes were purchased premixed (∼13.3x) from IDT. These individual primer/probe mixes, were then used to prepare a single mix for each of the 4-plex assays: 12.5x for RdE-RP (with equal volumes of each of the relevant mixes), 7.4x for N1E-RP and N2E-RP (with equal volumes of the E, RPP30 and PhHV mixes, combined with 3.7x volumes of N1 or N2 mix). Mixes were stored at -20°C, with working stocks kept at 4°C.
RT-qPCR
All RT-qPCRs were performed on Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR Systems and ABI 7500 software v2.3, using MicroAmp Fast Optical 0.1mL 96-well reaction plates (Cat. No. 4346906) and Optical Adhesive film (Cat. No. 4311971). For our assays we used the Takara One Step PrimeScript III RT-qPCR kit (Cat. No. RR600B). These were compared to the TaqPath™ COVID-19 Combo Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Cat. No. A47814) and the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cat. No. 09N77-090), used as instructed by the manufacturer. Early tests using mono or duplex RT-qPCR assays were performed using FAM-labelled probes or FAM and HEX-labelled probes respectively (sequences as in Table 2). Ultimately, experiments using the 4-plex assay were performed as described below, with a user-friendly protocol provided in Supplementary Material, Protocol 1.
For the 4-plex assays, the same primer/probe sequences and concentrations were used as for the mono/duplex assays. However, different labels and quenchers were used to allow simultaneous detection of four different targets (Table 2). Reaction master mixes were prepared (20 μl per reaction) for each assay, before adding 5 μl of template RNA per reaction, brief centrifugation and starting the PCR program. For the RdE-RP 4-plex assay, per reaction 12.5 μl of One-Step mix, 5.5 μl of nuclease-free water, 2 μl of 12.5x primer/probe mix and 5 μl of template RNA were mixed. For the N1E-RP and N2E-RP 4-plex assays, per reaction 12.5 μl of One-Step mix, 4.16 μl of nuclease-free water, 3.34 μl of 7.4x primer/probe mix and 5 μl of template RNA were mixed. For all 4-plex reactions the PCR program was: 5 min at 52°C, 10 s at 95°C, then 45 cycles of 3 s at 95°C and 30 s at 60°C. For detection the FAM, JOE, TEXAS RED and CY5 channels were used.
Positive controls
Positive control RNAs generated by in vitro transcription were provided by Sylvie Behillil (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France) for E gene [4] and by Christine Tait-Burkard (Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, UK) for RdRp [7, 8], N1/N3 and N2 [4]. An equimolar mix of all RNAs was prepared at 2.5 x 108 copies/µl, and aliquots stored at -80°C. Dilution series were prepared in nuclease-free water, in Eppendorf DNA LoBind tubes (Cat. No. 10051232), at 2,000, 200, 20, 10, 2 and 0.2 copies/µl.
QCMD controls
Quality Control for Molecular Diagnostics (Glasgow, UK) provided controls as part of the “QCMD 2020 Coronavirus Outbreak Preparedness (CVOP) EQA Pilot Scheme”. After they were tested blind using our assays, expected results along with sample identities were provided by QCMD.
Data Availability
n/a
Author contributions
MAMR, APJ, conceived the project. MAMR, LT, JCA, ADi, ADa, KT, JGH, NG, designed experiments. MAMR, LT, JCA, HAB, NG, performed RNA extractions and RT-qPCR experiments. ADa, MCS, performed viral inactivation experiments. FJS-L, CU, MA, ETF, TH, EJJ, FLMC, JKR, MW, CD, DL, CM, SJW, SM, LS, MA, DM, provided technical assistance. MAMR, LT, JCA, HAB, ADa, analysed data. MO’S, MLLM, NW, JS, KT, CT-B, JGH, provided reagents. MAMR, DM, KT, CT-B, JGH, IRA, APJ, supervised the work. IPMT, DM, NW, IJ, IRA, APJ, provided administrative organisation. MAMR produced figures and tables, and wrote the manuscript. All authors had the opportunity to edit the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Supplementary information
Supplementary material includes 4 figures, 4 tables and 2 protocols.
Supplementary material to
A: Ct values for RPP30 on a serial dilution of positive control plasmid DNA (100,000 down to 10 copies were tested)
B: Ct values for RPP30 on nucleic acids (NA) isolated from human cultured cells (1 = undiluted) and NA isolated from a serial dilution of the same cell suspension. Negative control samples did not show any amplification. Data points and error bars, mean ± SD (n=2 technical repli- cates). R2 values given for trend line fitting.
A, B: Ct values for internal controls, MS2 for TaqPath and PhHV for N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays (A), and RPP30 controls (B)
C: Ct values for PhHV and RPP30 controls for N1E-RP and N2E-RP assays, ranked by RPP30 values from the N1E-RP assay, confirm that variability does not substantially correlate with extraction efficiency
A, B: Ct values for N1 and E targets (A) and N2 and E targets (B) were obtained for QCMD control samples. These controls were provided as part of the QCMD 2020 Coronavirus Outbreak Preparedness (CVOP) EQA Pilot Scheme, and contain different amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Log10 dPCR values were obtained by QCMD using a digital droplet PCR assay (modified from [7, 8]). Also, see Table 1.
Supplementary Protocol 1: 4-plex SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay
Primers/probes
Dissolve primers and probes (Table P1; HPLC purified) in 10 mM Tris, 0.1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0 (IDTE Cat. No. 11-05-01-09, or similar) for 100 μM stocks. Prepare primer/probe mixes (Tables P2-P7), and store aliquots at -20°C. Working stocks can be stored at 4°C.
Primer/Probe Mixes
RT-qPCR
Any Real-Time qPCR machine that can detect the four different channels and has been calibrated for the appropriate fluorophores can be used. We use the Applied Biosystems™ 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR Systems (channels FAM, JOE, TEXAS RED and CY5) and 7500 Software v2.3, MicroAmp Fast Optical 0.1mL 96-well reaction plates (Cat. No. 4346906) and Optical Adhesive film (Cat. No. 4311971). We performed all RT-qPCRs with Takara One Step PrimeScript™ III RT-qPCR kit (Cat. No. RR600B). Other One-Step mixes are available, but may require slightly different reaction conditions and may change sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection.
N1E-RP and N2E-RP 4-plex assay
PCR program
Controls
Add the viral spike-in control to the lysis buffer master mix before sample inactivation.
[For our assays, we used 25 µl of culture supernatant containing PhHV particles to 25 ml of lysis buffer. This amount was previously shown to give a Ct value of ∼33.]
For each plate, include the following controls,
H10: negative extraction control, VTM extracted
H11: non-extraction negative control, water only
H12: 50 copies of positive control RNA (see below)
Positive control RNA
Positive control RNAs generated by in vitro transcription (IVT) were provided by:
- Sylvie Behillil (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France): mix of E gene and RdRp (the latter is not the same as the Corman et al (2020) RdRp template) [1-3] at 109 copies/µl
- Christine Tait-Burkard (Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, UK): RdRp [1, 2], N1/N3 and N2 [3]. Three individual IVT RNAs at known concentrations (ng/µl) were provided; molecular weights used to determine the concentrations in copies/µl and 109 copies/µl prepared for each RNA.
Prepare all stocks and dilutions in Eppendorf DNA LoBind tubes (Cat. No. 10051232).
Prepare an equimolar mix of all RNAs at 2.5 x 108 copies/µl. Store aliquots of this solution at -80°C.
Prepare 104 copies/µl positive RNA controls and store 5 µl aliquots at -80°C for single use per plate. Mix 5µl of 2.5 x 108 copies/µl with 620 µl of water to give 2 x 106 copies/µl. Dilute this 20 µl plus 180 µl water giving a 2 x 105 copies/µl solution, and 20 µl plus 380 µl giving 104 copies/µl.
For each plate, a 25 copies/µl solution is made by diluting the 104 copies/µl solution by mixing:
2 µl with 98 µl water, then
12.5 µl of this with 87.5 µl water
Of this 25 copies/µl solution, 2 µl is added to well H12 along with 3 µl of water, to give the 50 copy positive control on each plate.
Supplementary Protocol 2: Viral nucleic acid isolation
In principle, the buffers and solution below can replace those of the equivalent buffers in the Omega Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Cat. No. M6246). Lysis and wash buffers can either be replaced with guanidine thiocyanate (GnSCN) or guanidine hydrochloride (GnHCl) containing solutions, depending on reagent availability. In our preliminary tests, all performed equally well (data not shown). All lysis buffers (Omega TNA, GnSCN Lysis Buffer, GnHCl Lysis Buffer, each with/without isopropanol) were shown to inactivate coronavirus after 15 min incubation (Fig S4). Briefly, to determine whether lysis buffers inactivate coronaviruses, 200 µl CoV 229E-GFP [5, 6] stock (9.6×105 pfu/ml in DMEM, 10% FCS, 1% NEAA) was mixed with lysis buffer at the recommended ratio (240 µl lysis buffer without isopropanol or 520 µl lysis buffer with isopropanol, i.e. 240 µl buffer and 280 µl isopropanol). For positive infection controls, virus was mixed with 240 or 520 µl medium. All mixes were inverted 8 times and incubated at room temperature for 15 min. Cytotoxic components were then removed by centrifugation at 4°C using Microcon filter columns (Millipore; 30 kDa cut-off), and two 0.5 ml PBS washes, similar to previously described methods [7, 8]. Remaining virus particles were then resuspended in 200 µl DMEM and 50 µl of a 1/100 dilution added to HUH7 cells (a cell line permissive to infection by CoV 229E). Cells were seeded the previous day at 1.8×104/well in a black 96-well plate (Corning), and were at ∼80% confluence for infection. Cultures were monitored daily for cell viability, cytopathic effects and GFP expression using microscopy. No significant cell death was observed for any of the samples. Relative fluorescence was measured using a Clariostar BMG Plate Reader at 72 h, with fluorescence for a non-infected control set to zero. No fluorescence was observed for any of the lysis buffer treated samples (Fig S4), and fluorescence microscopy confirmed the absence of GFP positive cells (data not shown), consistent with complete viral inactivation.
In our preliminary tests, we used the March 2020 version of the protocol provided with the Omega Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit to test viral nucleic acid isolation with our own solutions and reagents (see below). We used the Mag-Bind Particles CNR from the Omega kit, and although we have not yet tested this, we expect that these can be replaced by SeraSil-Mag silica beads (Cytiva, cat No. 29357375). The March 2020 protocol is different from the April 2020 Supplementary Protocol provided by Omega. The latter was used in combination with original Omega kit components for all other work presented in our manuscript. We do not see any reasons why our solutions would not work equally well with the April 2020 version of the protocol, but have not tested this. All purifications were carried out using a KingFisher Flex robot (Cat. No. 5400610), KingFisher Deep well plates (Cat. No. 95040450), KingFisher Flex 96 Deep-Well Tip Combs (Cat. No. A43074) and KingFisher 96 microplates (Cat. No. 97002540). Alternative robots could be used; and manual purifications are also possible.
CoV 229E-GFP was mixed with lysis buffer (- or + isopropanol) as described and then used to infect HUH7 cells. After 72 h of infection, GFP fluorescence (indicating infected cells) was measured. Negative (neg) control, no infection; positive control (Pos1 and 2), virus mixed with medium instead of lysis buffer. Fluorescence units (RFU) are expressed relative to background (negative control fluorescence set to 0). Solid lines indicate the mean for n=2 independent experiments.
Protocol in brief (tested with home-made solutions; based on Omega March 2020 protocol)
Per sample, prepare 528 µl master mix: 240 µl lysis buffer, 8 µl carrier RNA (1 µg/µl) and 280 µl isopropanol
Add 200 µl of patient sample in VTM, mix thoroughly; incubate for >15 min
Add 20 µl of 1:1 mix of Magnetic bead suspension and Proteinase K solution (40 µg/µl). KingFisher Flex, loop though 3 times: 2 min fast mix, 30 s half mix, 30 s bottom mix
Employ magnetic separation (Collect beads, 3×10 s)
Wash beads with 400 μL VHB wash buffer (Release beads, 3 min fast mix, collect beads 3×5 s)
Wash beads with 500 μL SPR Wash buffer (Release beads, 2 min fast mix, collect beads 3×5 s)
Wash beads with 500 μL SPR Wash buffer (Release beads, 2 min fast mix, collect beads 3×5 s)
Air dry magnetic beads (10 min, above well)
Elute nucleic acids in 50 µl nuclease-free water (Release beads, 5 min medium mix, collect beads 3×10 s)
Protocol in brief (not tested with home-made solutions; based on Omega April 2020 protocol)
Per sample, mix 240 µl lysis buffer and 1 µl carrier RNA (1 µg/µl)
Add 200 µl of patient sample in VTM, mix thoroughly; incubate for >15 min
Add isopropanol bead mix (280 µl isopropanol and 2 µl magnetic beads). KingFisher Flex, loop though 3 times: 2 min fast mix, 30 s half mix, 30 s bottom mix
Employ magnetic separation (Collect beads, 3×10 s)
Wash beads with 350 μL VHB wash buffer (Release beads, 3 min fast mix, collect beads 3×5 s)
Wash beads with 350 μL SPR Wash buffer (Release beads, 2 min fast mix, collect beads 3×5 s)
Wash beads with 350 μL SPR Wash buffer (Release beads, 2 min fast mix, collect beads 3×5 s)
Air dry magnetic beads (10 min, above well)
Elute nucleic acids in 50 µl nuclease-free water (Release beads, 5 min medium mix, collect beads 3×10 s)
Reagents
Guanidine thiocyanate based
Guanidine hydrochloride based
SPR Wash buffer 2 equivalent
80% Ethanol
Proteinase K (PCR grade; e.g. Roche Cat. No. 03115801001)
Dissolve in 10 mM Tris pH 8.0, 1 mM EDTA at 40 mg/ml
Store aliquots at -20°C
Carrier RNA (e.g. yeast tRNA, Roche Cat. No. 10109509001)
Dissolve in 10 mM Tris pH 8.0, 1 mM EDTA at 1 mg/ml
Store aliquots at -20°C
Acknowledgments
We thank Sylvie Behillil (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France), Rory Gunson (NHS Molecular Development in Virology and Microbiology, Glasgow, UK) and QCMD (Glasgow, UK) for reagents; and Angela Ingram, Derek Mills, Maggie Arbuckle, Joyce Begbie, Heather Coupar, Eilidh Guild, Samantha Griffiths, Garry Jempson, Alain Kemp, Frances Rae and Thomas Williams for support. CT-B and MO’S were funded by BBSRC Institute Strategic Programme grant funding (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/20002173). This work was supported by a UK Medical Research Council Human Genetics Unit core grant (MRC, U127580972) and by NHS National Services Scotland, as part of a technology development exercise at the NHS-led University of Edinburgh/NHS Lothian COVID-19 testing centre at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine.
