Microfluidic Nano-Scale qPCR Enables Ultra-Sensitive and Quantitative Detection of SARS-CoV-2

  1. Xin Xie
  2. Tamara Gjorgjieva
  3. Zaynoun Attieh
  4. Mame Massar Dieng
  5. Marc Arnoux
  6. Mostafa Khair
  7. Yasmine Moussa
  8. Fatima Al Jallaf
  9. Nabil Rahiman
  10. Christopher A. Jackson
  11. Lobna El Messery
  12. Khristine Pamplona
  13. Zyrone Victoria
  14. Mohammed Zafar
  15. Raghib Ali
  16. Fabio Piano
  17. Kristin C. Gunsalus
  18. Youssef Idaghdour

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

A major challenge in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic is the high false-negative rate of the commonly used RT-PCR methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection in clinical samples. Accurate detection is particularly challenging in samples with low viral loads that are below the limit of detection (LoD) of standard one- or two-step RT-PCR methods. In this study, we implemented a three-step approach for SARS-CoV-2 detection and quantification that employs reverse transcription, targeted cDNA preamplification, and nano-scale qPCR based on a commercially available microfluidic chip. Using SARS-CoV-2 synthetic RNA and plasmid controls, we demonstrate that the addition of a preamplification step enhances the LoD of this microfluidic RT-qPCR by 1000-fold, enabling detection below 1 copy/µL. We applied this method to analyze 182 clinical NP swab samples previously diagnosed using a standard RT-qPCR protocol (91 positive, 91 negative) and demonstrate reproducible and quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 over five orders of magnitude (<1 to 106 viral copies/µL). Crucially, we detect SARS-CoV-2 with relatively low viral load estimates (<1 to 40 viral copies/µL) in 17 samples with negative clinical diagnosis, indicating a potential false-negative rate of 18.7% by clinical diagnostic procedures. In summary, this three-step nano-scale RT-qPCR method can robustly detect SARS-CoV-2 in samples with relatively low viral loads (<1 viral copy/µL) and has the potential to reduce the false-negative rate of standard RT-PCR-based diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/pr8111425
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.28.20183970: (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
    Statistical analysis: Data analysis was performed with R, associated packages, and GraphPad Prism 8.
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.28.20183970v1 on medRxiv