4.4 Article

A fast and cheap in-house magnetic bead RNA extraction method for COVID-19 diagnosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 300, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114414

关键词

SARS-CoV-2; RT-qPCR; RNA extraction; COVID-19 test

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [19/18581-6]
  2. Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) [FINEP 01.20.0029.000462/20, CNPq 404096/2020-4]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [19/18581-6] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared two bead-based RNA extraction methods (an in-house and a commercial kit) for RNA extraction from nasopharyngeal swabs and RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. The results showed that the in-house protocol is an affordable and reliable option for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs.
COVID-19 has posed a worldwide public health challenge affecting millions of people in different countries. Rapid and efficient detection of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for pandemic control. Reverse Transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) of nasopharyngeal swabs is the gold standard method for the virus detection, but the high demand for tests has substantially increased the costs and reduced the availability of reagents, including genetic material purification kits. Thus, the present study aimed to compare two bead-based RNA extraction methods (an in-house and a commercial kit) from nasopharyngeal swabs and RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. Twenty-five positive and five negative nasopharyngeal swab samples were subjected to extraction of nucleic acids using both methods in an automated platform. Both protocols revealed a high correlation between Cycle Quantifications (Cqs) (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001). In addition, the in-house kit was 89.5 % cheaper when compared to the mean cost of commercial RNA extraction kits. The results show that the in-house protocol is an affordable and reliable option for RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据