SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR assays: In vitro comparison of 4 WHO approved protocols on clinical specimens and its implications for real laboratory practice through variant emergence.
COVID-19
Diagnosis
False negative
False positive
In vitro
RT-PCR
SARS-CoV2
Sensitivity
Variant
Journal
Virology journal
ISSN: 1743-422X
Titre abrégé: Virol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101231645
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 03 2022
28 03 2022
Historique:
received:
09
01
2022
accepted:
14
03
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
pubmed:
30
3
2022
medline:
1
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
RT-PCR testing on nasopharyngeal swabs is a key component in the COVID-19 fighting, provided to use sensitive and specific SARS-CoV2 genome targets. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and to compare 4 widely used WHO approved RT-PCR protocols on real clinical specimens, to decrypt the reasons of the diverging results and to propose recommendations for the choice of the genome targets. 260 nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among the samples tested between Week-16, 2020 and week-16 2021, in the Institut Pasteur de Tunis, Tunisia, one of the referent laboratories of COVID-19 in Tunisia. All samples were tested by Charité, Berlin protocol (singleplex envelop (E) and singleplex RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)), Hong Kong Universiy, China protocol (singleplex nucleoprotein (N) and singleplex Open reading frame Orf1b), commercial test DAAN Gene® (using the CDC China protocol), (triplex N, Orf1ab with internal control) and Institut Pasteur Paris protocol (IPP) (triplex IP2(nsp9) and IP4 (nsp12) with internal control). For IPP, a selection from samples positive by IP2 but negative with IP4 was re-tested by exactly the same protocol but this time in singleplex. New results were described and analyzed. In vitro analysis showed discordant results in 29.2% of cases (76 out of 260). The most discordant protocol is DAAN Gene® due to the false positive late signals with N target. Discordant results between the two protocol's targets are more frequent when viral load are low (high Ct values). Our results demonstrated that the multiplexing has worsened the sensitivity of the IP4 target. We provide concise recommendations for the choice of the genome targets, the interpretation of the results and the alarm signals which makes suspect a gene mutation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35346227
doi: 10.1186/s12985-022-01784-4
pii: 10.1186/s12985-022-01784-4
pmc: PMC8959265
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
54Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 15;16(12):e0260487
pubmed: 34910739
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32269100
Viruses. 2022 Mar 17;14(3):
pubmed: 35337031
J Virol Methods. 2021 Jul;293:114149
pubmed: 33839185
Viruses. 2020 Jun 25;12(6):
pubmed: 32630601
Pan Afr Med J. 2020 Jul 21;35(Suppl 2):121
pubmed: 33282076
Mol Cell Probes. 2020 Oct;53:101599
pubmed: 32425334
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(21):
pubmed: 32489175
Genes (Basel). 2021 Apr 13;12(4):
pubmed: 33924636
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1633-1635
pubmed: 32294051
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):1755-1756
pubmed: 32270882
Genomics. 2020 Nov;112(6):5204-5213
pubmed: 32966857
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Dec 17;59(1):
pubmed: 33067272
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Mar 19;59(4):
pubmed: 33472904
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2021 Jul;21(7):733-740
pubmed: 34015984
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Apr 23;58(5):
pubmed: 32132196
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 10;15(12):e0242958
pubmed: 33301459
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Sep 22;58(10):
pubmed: 32690547
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Sep;27(9):1353.e1-1353.e5
pubmed: 34044153
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Dec 22;9(3):e0063921
pubmed: 34756072
Biosens Bioelectron. 2021 Jan 15;172:112752
pubmed: 33126180
J Clin Virol. 2020 Dec;133:104660
pubmed: 33126109
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(21):
pubmed: 32489177
Pathogens. 2021 May 21;10(6):
pubmed: 34064143
JAMA. 2020 Apr 21;323(15):1502-1503
pubmed: 32105304