PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Nabil-Fareed Alikhan AU - Joshua Quick AU - Alexander J. Trotter AU - Samuel C. Robson AU - Matthew Bashton AU - Gemma L. Kay AU - Matt Loose AU - Stefan Rooke AU - Martin McHugh AU - Alistair C Darby AU - Samuel M. Nicholls AU - Nicholas J. Loman AU - The COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) consortium AU - Samir Dervisevic AU - Andrew J. Page AU - Justin O’Grady TI - Defining the analytical and clinical sensitivity of the ARTIC method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 AID - 10.1101/2021.10.09.21264695 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.10.09.21264695 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/11/2021.10.09.21264695.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/11/2021.10.09.21264695.full AB - The SARS-CoV-2 ARTIC amplicon protocol is the most widely used genome sequencing method for SARS-CoV-2, accounting for over 43% of publicly-available genome sequences. The protocol utilises 98 primers to amplify ∼400bp fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 genome covering all 30,000 bases. Understanding the analytical performance metrics of this protocol will improve how the data is used and interpreted. Different concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 control material were used to establish the limit of detection (LoD) of the ARTIC protocol. Results demonstrated the LoD was a minimum of 25-50 virus particles per mL. The sensitivity of ARTIC was comparable to the published sensitivities of commercial diagnostics assays and could therefore be used to confirm diagnostic testing results. A set of over 3,600 clinical samples from three UK regions were then evaluated to compare the protocols performance to clinical diagnostic assays (Roche Lightcycler 480 II, AusDiagnostics, Roche Cobas, Hologic Panther, Corman RdRp, Roche Flow, ABI QuantStudio 5, Seegene Nimbus, Qiagen Rotorgene, Abbott M2000, Thermo TaqPath, Xpert). We developed a Python tool, RonaLDO, to perform this validation (available under the GNU GPL3 open-source licence from https://github.com/quadram-institute-bioscience/ronaldo). Positives detected by diagnostic platforms were generally supported by sequencing data; platforms that used RT-qPCR were the best predictors of whether the sample would subsequently sequence successfully. To maximise success of sample sequencing for phylogenetic analysis, samples with Ct <31 should be chosen. For diagnostic tests that do not provide a quantifiable Ct value, adding a quantification step is recommended. The ARTIC SARS-CoV-2 sequencing protocol is highly sensitive, capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in samples with Cts in the high 30s. However, to routinely obtain whole genome coverage, samples with Ct <31 are recommended. Comparing different virus detection methods close to their LoD was challenging and significant discordance was observed.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe QIB authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), this research was funded by the BBSRC Institute Strategic Programme Microbes in the Food Chain BB/R012504/1 and its constituent projects BBS/E/F/000PR10348, BBS/E/F/000PR10349, BBS/E/F/000PR10351, and BBS/E/F/000PR10352 and the Core Capability Grant (project number BB/CCG1860/1). MB and SR were funded by Research England's Expanding Excellence in England (E3) fund. The sequencing costs were funded by the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium which is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All samples were collected prospectively as part of routine clinical diagnostic testing and excess sample shared with the sequencing sites under approval by Public Health England's Research Ethics and Governance Group (PHE R&D Ref: NR0195).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesRaw sequence data from clinical samples were deposited in and are available from the European Nucleotide Archive under BioProject accession number PRJEB37886. All consensus genomes are available from COG-UK (https://www.cogconsortium.uk) and high-quality genomes are also available from GISAID. Sequence data from LoD experiments are available under BioProject accession number PRJEB41469.