4.7 Article

Nested pool testing strategy for the diagnosis of infectious diseases

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97534-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UBA [UBACyT 20020170100482BA, 20020160100155BA]
  2. ANPCyT [PICT 2015-3824, 2015-3583, 2018-02026, 2018-02842]
  3. FAPESP [2013/07375-0, 2016/01860-1, 2018/24293-0]
  4. CNPq [302538/2019-4, 302682/2019-8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of droplet digital PCR has been shown to be more sensitive than RT-qPCR, allowing for direct quantification of RNA content and optimizing strategies for better identification of infected individuals.
The progress of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic requires the design of large-scale, cost-effective testing programs. Pooling samples provides a solution if the tests are sensitive enough. In this regard, the use of the gold standard, RT-qPCR, raises some concerns. Recently, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was shown to be 10-100 times more sensitive than RT-qPCR, making it more suitable for pooling. Furthermore, ddPCR quantifies the RNA content directly, a feature that, as we show, can be used to identify nonviable samples in pools. Cost-effective strategies require the definition of efficient deconvolution and re-testing procedures. In this paper we analyze the practical implementation of an efficient hierarchical pooling strategy for which we have recently derived the optimal, determining the best ways to proceed when there are impediments for the use of the absolute optimum or when multiple pools are tested simultaneously and there are restrictions on the throughput time. We also show how the ddPCR RNA quantification and the nested nature of the strategy can be combined to perform self-consistency tests for a better identification of infected individuals and nonviable samples. The studies are useful to those considering pool testing for the identification of infected individuals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available