Comparison of three TaqMan Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR assays in detecting SARS-CoV-2

  1. Yan Xiao
  2. Zhen Li
  3. Xinming Wang
  4. Yingying Wang
  5. Ying Wang
  6. Geng Wang
  7. Lili Ren
  8. Jianguo Li

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

Quick and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critical for COVID-19 control. Dozens of real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) assays have been developed to meet the urgent need of COVID-19 control. However, methodological comparisons among the developed qRT-PCR assays are limited. In the present study, we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, amplification efficiency, and linear detection ranges of three qRT-PCR assays, including the assays developed by our group (IPBCAMS), and the assays recommended by WHO and China CDC (CCDC). The three qRT-PCR assays exhibited similar sensitivities, with the limit of detection (LOD) at about 10 copies per reaction (except the ORF 1b gene assay in CCDC assays with a LOD at about 100 copies per reaction). No cross reaction with other respiratory viruses were observed in all of the three qRT-PCR assays. Wide linear detection ranges from 10 6 to 10 1 copies per reaction and acceptable reproducibility were obtained. By using 25 clinical specimens, the N gene assay of IPBCAMS assays and CCDC assays performed better (with detection rates of 92% and 100%, respectively) than that of the WHO assays (with a detection rate of 60%), and the ORF 1b gene assay in IPBCAMS assays performed better (with a detection rate of 64%) than those of the WHO assays and the CCDC assays (with detection rates of 48% and 20%, respectively). In conclusion, the N gene assays of CCDC assays and IPBCAMS assays and the ORF 1b gene assay of IPBCAMS assays were recommended for qRT-PCR screening of SARS-CoV-2.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.06.189860: (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 10.1101/2020.07.06.189860 on bioRxiv