4.7 Article

Comparison of two digital PCR methods for EGFR DNA and SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 521, Issue -, Pages 9-18

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.06.016

Keywords

Digital PCR; EGFR; SARS-CoV-2; HIV-1; Digital real-time PCR

Funding

  1. National Research Council of Science and Technology [GP2020-0003/20011003, IP20190039/19601001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the application of digital PCR in nucleic acid quantification. Digital real-time PCR showed similar results to traditional dPCR methods in DNA and RNA quantification, especially exhibiting higher sensitivity and precision for low copy number targets.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute SARS-CoV-2 virus has undeniably highlighted the importance of reliable nucleic acid quantification. Digital PCR (dPCR) is capable of the absolute quantification of nucleic acids. Method: By using the droplet dPCR (QX200) and the digital real-time PCR (LOAA), the copy numbers were compared via multiple assays for three distinct targerts; EGFR DNA, SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 RNA. Results: The droplet dPCR and digital real-time PCR showed similar copy numbers for both DNA and RNA quantification. When the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of each method were estimated for DNA and RNA targets, the digital real-time PCR showed a higher sensitivity and precision especially with low copy number targets. Conclusion: The breath of nucleic acid testing in diagnostic applications continues to expand. In this study we applied common diagnostic targets to a novel digital real-time PCR methodology. It performed comparably to the established dPCR method with distinctive advantages and disadvantages for implementing in laboratories. These rapidly developing dPCR systems can be applied to benefit the accurate and sensitive nucleic acid testing for various clinical areas.

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