RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Ultrafast RNA extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 detection by direct RT-PCR using a rapid thermal cycling approach
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.11.09.21265517
DO 10.1101/2021.11.09.21265517
A1 Robin Struijk
A1 Anton van den Ouden
A1 Brian McNally
A1 Theun de Groot
A1 Bert Mulder
A1 Gert de Vos
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.09.21265517.abstract
AB The surging COVID19 pandemic has underlined the need for quick, sensitive, and high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 detection assays. Although many different methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 particles in clinical material have been developed, none of these assays are successful in combining all three of the above characteristics into a single, easy-to-use method that is suitable for large-scale use. Here we report the development of a direct RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection method that can reliably detect minute quantities of SARS-CoV-2 gRNA in nasopharyngeal swab samples as well as the presence of human genomic DNA. An extraction-less validation protocol was carried out to determine performance characteristics of the assay in both synthetic SARS-CoV-2 RNA as well as clinical specimens. Feasibility of the assay and analytical sensitivity was first determined by testing a dilution series of synthetic SARS-CoV-2 RNA in two different solvents (water and AMIES VTM), revealing a high degree of linearity and robustness in fluorescence readouts. Following analytical performance using synthetic RNA, the limit of detection was determined at equal to or less than 1 SARS-CoV-2 copy/ul of sample in a commercially available sample panel that contains surrogate clinical samples with varying SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Lastly, we benchmarked our method against a reference qPCR method by testing 87 nasopharyngeal swab samples. The direct endpoint ultra-fast RT-PCR method exhibited a positive percent agreement score of 98.5% and a negative percent agreement score of 100% as compared to the reference method, while RT-PCR cycling was completed in 27 minutes/sample as opposed to 60 minutes/sample in the reference qPCR method. In summary, we describe a rapid direct RT-PCR method to detect SARS-CoV-2 material in clinical specimens which can be completed in significantly less time as compared to conventional RT-PCR methods, making it an attractive option for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening applications.Competing Interest StatementRobin Struijk en Anton van den Ouden are employed by Molecular Biology Systems. Gert de Vos is reimbursed for his work by Molecular Biology Systems. Brian McNally is consulting to Molecular Biology Systems. no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor 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:De Locale Toetsingscommissie and the Research Support Office of Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital waived ethical approval for this work. Documented under internal Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital case number LTC/TT/083-2021 in accordance with the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO).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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors