A comparative evaluation of a dye-based and probe-based RT-qPCR assay for the screening of SARS-CoV-2 using individual and pooled-sample testing

  1. Claudio Verdugo
  2. Anita Plaza
  3. Gerardo Acosta-Jamett
  4. Natalia Castro
  5. Josefina Gutiérrez
  6. Carlos Hernández
  7. Carmen López-Joven
  8. Carlos A. Loncoman
  9. Claudio Navarrete
  10. Alfredo Ramírez-Reveco
  11. Alex Romero
  12. Andrea Silva
  13. Matías Vega
  14. Cristóbal Verdugo
  15. Jonathan Vergara-Amado

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Effective interventions are mandatory to control the transmission and spread of SARS-CoV-2, a highly contagious virus causing devastating effects worldwide. Cost-effective approaches are pivotal tools required to increase the detection rates and escalate further in massive surveillance programs, especially in countries with limited resources that most of the efforts have focused on symptomatic cases only. Here, we compared the performance of the RT-qPCR using an intercalating dye with the probe-based assay. Then, we tested and compared these two RT-qPCR chemistries in different pooling systems: after RNA extraction (post-RNA extraction) and before RNA extraction (pre-RNA extraction) optimizing by pool size and template volume. We evaluated these approaches in 610 clinical samples. Our results show that the dye-based technique has a high analytical sensitivity similar to the probe-based detection assay used worldwide. Further, this assay may also be applicable in testing by pool systems post-RNA extraction up to 20 samples. However, the most efficient system for massive surveillance, the pre-RNA extraction pooling approach, was obtained with the probe-based assay in test up to 10 samples adding 13.5 µL of RNA template. The low cost and the potential use in pre-RNA extraction pool systems, place of this assays as a valuable resource for scalable sampling to larger populations. Implementing a pool system for population sampling results in an important savings of laboratory resources and time, which are two key factors during an epidemic outbreak. Using the pooling approaches evaluated here, we are confident that it can be used as a valid alternative assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in human samples.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117721: (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

    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.

    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 10.1101/2020.05.30.20117721v1 on medRxiv