Evaluation of WHO listed COVID-19 qPCR primers and probe in silico with 375 SERS-CoV-2 full genome sequences

  1. Derek Toms
  2. Julang Li
  3. Hugh Y. Cai

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) assays remains the gold standard for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus because of its sensitivity and specificity. However, successful design of qRT-PCR assays requires accurate viral genome sequences. With mutations accumulating as the virus is transmitted globally, we sought to compare current assays recommended by the World Health Organization with available SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences in silico . While most sequences were conserved, there were notable mismatches, particularly in assays developed using early sequences when compared to more recent isolates. We recommend that any assay being evaluated for diagnostic tests be compared with prevalent sequence data from the region of proposed testing and that continued publicly accessible sequence information continue to be provided by the research community.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.22.20075697: (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
    Study Identification and Selection: A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)
    Primers and probes of each protocols were blast searched against the custom SARS-CoV-2 genome database, and or analyzed with multiple sequence alignment using Geneious version 11.1.
    Geneious
    suggested: (Geneious, RRID:SCR_010519)

    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:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • 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 10.1101/2020.04.22.20075697v1 on medRxiv