Comparison of commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19

  1. Puck B. van Kasteren
  2. Bas van der Veer
  3. Sharon van den Brink
  4. Lisa Wijsman
  5. Jørgen de Jonge
  6. Annemarie van den Brandt
  7. Richard Molenkamp
  8. Chantal B.E.M. Reusken
  9. Adam Meijer

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate identification of virus-infected individuals by the most sensitive and specific method available, i.e. real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Many commercial kits have recently become available, but their performance has not yet been independently assessed.

The aim of this study was to compare basic analytical and clinical performance of selected RT-PCR kits from seven different manufacturers (Altona Diagnostics, BGI, CerTest Biotec, KH Medical, PrimerDesign, R-Biopharm AG, and Seegene).

We used serial dilutions of viral RNA to establish PCR efficiency and estimate the 95% limit of detection (LOD95%). Furthermore, we ran a panel of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical samples (n=16) for a preliminary evaluation of clinical sensitivity. Finally, we used clinical samples positive for non-coronavirus respiratory viral infections (n=6) and a panel of RNA from related human coronaviruses to evaluate assay specificity.

PCR efficiency was ≥96% for all assays and the estimated LOD95% varied within a 6-fold range. Using clinical samples, we observed some variations in detection rate between kits. Importantly, none of the assays showed cross-reactivity with other respiratory (corona)viruses, except as expected for the SARS-CoV-1 E-gene.

We conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients by experienced molecular diagnostic laboratories.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.22.056747: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We determined the slope by linear regression in GraphPad Prism and defined the required levels for PCR efficiency (E) and R2 as >95% and >0.95, respectively.
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Next, we ran four replicates of a 2-fold dilution series (diluted in yeast carrier RNA in water) to determine the LOD95% by Probit analysis using SPSS Statistics (IBM, version 24).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • No conflict of interest statement was detected. If there are no conflicts, we encourage authors to explicit state so.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.22.056747 on bioRxiv