4.2 Article

The Comparative Analysis of Two RT-qPCR Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Reveals a Higher Risk of False-Negative Diagnosis in Samples with High Quantification Cycles for Viral and Internal Genes

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2594564

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. COVID-19 diagnosis in the University laboratories network (Ministry of Sciences, Ministry of Health, Government of Chile)
  2. National Doctorate Scholarship [21180465]
  3. Rapid Assignment of Resources for Research Projects on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) [COVID1038]
  4. Fondecyt regular [1201664, 1211841]
  5. Fondecyt iniciacion [11221308]
  6. DICYT-USACH [021943AC]
  7. FONDEQUIP grant [EQM200016]
  8. Basal Grant CEDENNA [AFB180001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzes the performance of two commercial RT-qPCR kits used in Chile and finds that the TAAG kit has lower sensitivity, potentially leading to false negatives and local outbreaks of infection.
The early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using the real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as a gold-standard molecular tool has allowed to test and trace the viral spread and the isolation of COVID-19-infected patients. The detection capacity of viral and internal genes is an essential parameter to consider and analyze during the assay. In this study, we analyze the performance of the two commercial RT-qPCR kits used in Chile, TaqMan (TM) 2019-nCoV Control Kit v1 (Thermo Fisher) and MaxCov19 (TAAG Genetics), for the COVID-19 diagnosis from nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs). Our results show a lower sensitivity of the TAAG kit compared to the Thermo Fisher kit, even in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 mutations associated with its variants. This study reinforces the relevance of evaluating the performance of RT-qPCR kits before being used massively since those with lower sensitivity can generate false negatives and produce outbreaks of local infections.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available