Overhauling a faulty control in the CDC-recommended SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test panel

  1. Rob J. Dekker
  2. Wim A. Ensink
  3. Selina van Leeuwen
  4. Han Rauwerda
  5. Timo M. Breit

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To battle the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread testing for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is worldwide being employed by specific real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) of viral RNA. The CDC has issued a recommended panel of PCR-based test sets that entail several primer/probe sets that target the SARS-CoV-2 N-gene, but also one that targets the human RNase P gene (h-RP) as a positive control for RNA extraction and/or reverse-transcription (RT) efficacy.

We discovered that the CDC-recommended h-RP primer/probe set has a faulty design, because both PCR primers are located in the same exon, which allows for unwanted PCR-amplification of background genomic DNA (gDNA). By removing RNA from nose-swab samples by an RNase treatment, we showed that the presence of gDNA in samples resulted in false-positive signals for the h-RP test control. This is rather serious, because it could lead to false-negative test outcomes, since the CDC interpretation of an absent SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR signal plus a positive h-RP rRT-PCR signal is interpreted as “2019-nCoV not detected”, whereas a false-positive h-RP rRT-PCR signal resulting from amplification of gDNA should be interpreted as “Invalid Result” and the procedure should be repeated.

In order to overhaul the faulty h-RP rRT-PCR primer/probe set with minimal modification, we designed and tested several new h-RP reverse primers. Replacement of the CDC-recommended PCR reverse primer with our selected exon-exon junction reverse primer corrected the problem of false-positive results with this important SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test control and thus eliminated the problem of potential false-negative COVID-19 diagnoses.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.12.147819: (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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2020.06.12.147819v2 on bioRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.12.147819v1 on bioRxiv