Capillary Electrophoresis of PCR fragments with 5’-labelled primers for testing the SARS-Cov-2
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
Due to the huge demand for SARS-Cov-2 determination, alternatives to the standard qtPCR tests are potentially useful for increasing the number of samples screened. Our aim was to develop a direct fluorescent PCR capillary-electrophoresis detection of the viral genome. We validated this approach on several SARS-Cov-2 positive and negative samples.
Study design
We isolated the naso-pharingeal RNA from 20 positive and 10 negative samples. The cDNA was synthesised and two fragments of the SARS-Cov-2 were amplified. One of the primers for each pair was 5’-end fluorochrome labelled. The amplifications were subjected to capillary electrophoresis in ABI3130 sequencers to visualize the fluorescent peaks.
Results
The two SARS-Cov-2 fragments were successfully amplified in the positive samples, while the negative samples did not render fluorescent peaks.
Conclusion
We describe and alternative method to identify the SARS-Cov-2 genome that could be scaled to the analysis of approximately 100 samples in less than 5 hours. By combining a standard PCR with capillary electrophoresis our approach would overcome the limits imposed to many labs by the qtPCR (lack of reactive and real-time PCR equipment) and increase the testing capacity.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.16.099242: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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 …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.16.099242: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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.
-
