4.6 Article

Validation of Two Commercial Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Stool Donors for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10020284

关键词

FMT; RT-PCR; COVID-19; feces; donor screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the performance of two commercially available assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool. The results showed that both assays were able to reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 with high reproducibility and accuracy. This suggests the potential use of these methods for the screening of FMT donors.
Recurrent infection by Clostridioides difficile has recently been treated by fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). As viable SARS-CoV-2 was recovered from stool of asymptomatic individuals, the FMT procedure could be a potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, thus underlying the need to reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 in stool. Here, we performed a multicentric study to explore performances of two commercially available assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool of potential FMT donors. In three hospitals, 180 stool samples were spiked with serial 10-fold dilutions of a SARS-CoV-2 inactivated lysate to evaluate the Seegene Allplex (TM) SARS-CoV-2 (SC2) and SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV (SC2FABR) Assays for the detection of viral RNA in stool of FMT donors. The results revealed that both assays detected down to 2 TCID50/mL with comparable limit of detection values, SC2 showing more consistent target positivity rate than SC2FABR. Beyond high amplification efficiency, correlation between C-T values and log concentrations of inactivated viral lysates showed R-2 values ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 and from 0.87 to 0.91 for the SC2 and SC2FABR assay, respectively. The present results demonstrate that both methods are highly reproducible, sensitive, and accurate for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in stool, suggesting a potential use in FMT-donor screening.

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

4.6
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