COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Campos , Karoline Rodrigues
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Sacchi , Cláudio Tavares, Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina, Pagnoca , Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes, Dias , Alana dos Santos, Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama, Caterino-de-Araujo , Adele
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/article/view/189073
Resumo: The gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and quality of the RNA input. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of three different kits/reagents for RNA extraction used in COVID-19 diagnosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A total of 300 NP/OP samples belonging to suspected cases of COVID-19 stored in a biorepository were randomly selected, and RNA was extracted using (i) automated extraction (Loccus, Extracta Kit FAST), (ii) manual extraction (BioGene Kit, Bioclin, Quibasa), and (iii) quick extraction methods (Lucigen, Quick DNA Extract Kit). Next, the samples were tested using RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 with the Allplex 2019-nCoV modified assay and the Charité-Berlin protocol. All assays/kits were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the Allplex kit, the sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 with previously extracted RNA by different procedures was 100.0% for Loccus, 100.0% for BioGene and 91.9% for Quick. Using the Charité-Berlin protocol, the sensitivities were 81.4% for Loccus, 81.2% for BioGene and 60.7% for Quick. The least sensitive target gene and the gene most affected by RNA extraction procedures was the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (Charité-Berlin protocol). No false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were detected using RNA obtained from any of the different protocols. In conclusion, Loccus and BioGene RNA extractions were efficient for RT-qPCR assays, and although the BioGene procedure is less expensive, Loccus is the best choice because it allows the rapid handling of hundreds or thousands of samples, a desirable feature during pandemics. Although less sensitive, the Quick extraction is useful during outbreaks coupled with the Allplex amplification kit for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (κ = 0.925).
id IMT-1_d2874f3b14ce0410e86ac17bcdc6fd3d
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/189073
network_acronym_str IMT-1
network_name_str Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
repository_id_str
spelling COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocolsCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRSARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosisRNA extraction methodsAssays performancesCost-effectivenessRT-qPCRThe gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and quality of the RNA input. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of three different kits/reagents for RNA extraction used in COVID-19 diagnosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A total of 300 NP/OP samples belonging to suspected cases of COVID-19 stored in a biorepository were randomly selected, and RNA was extracted using (i) automated extraction (Loccus, Extracta Kit FAST), (ii) manual extraction (BioGene Kit, Bioclin, Quibasa), and (iii) quick extraction methods (Lucigen, Quick DNA Extract Kit). Next, the samples were tested using RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 with the Allplex 2019-nCoV modified assay and the Charité-Berlin protocol. All assays/kits were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the Allplex kit, the sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 with previously extracted RNA by different procedures was 100.0% for Loccus, 100.0% for BioGene and 91.9% for Quick. Using the Charité-Berlin protocol, the sensitivities were 81.4% for Loccus, 81.2% for BioGene and 60.7% for Quick. The least sensitive target gene and the gene most affected by RNA extraction procedures was the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (Charité-Berlin protocol). No false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were detected using RNA obtained from any of the different protocols. In conclusion, Loccus and BioGene RNA extractions were efficient for RT-qPCR assays, and although the BioGene procedure is less expensive, Loccus is the best choice because it allows the rapid handling of hundreds or thousands of samples, a desirable feature during pandemics. Although less sensitive, the Quick extraction is useful during outbreaks coupled with the Allplex amplification kit for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (κ = 0.925).Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo2021-08-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/article/view/18907310.1590/S1678-9946202163052 Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo; Vol. 63 (2021); e52Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo; Vol. 63 (2021); e52Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo; v. 63 (2021); e521678-99460036-4665reponame:Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Pauloinstname:Instituto de Medicina Tropical (IMT)instacron:IMTenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/article/view/189073/174733Copyright (c) 2021 Karoline Rodrigues Campos , Cláudio Tavares Sacchi , Cláudia Regina Gonçalves, Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes Pagnoca , Alana dos Santos Dias , Lucila Okuyama Fukasawa, Adele Caterino-de-Araujo https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCampos , Karoline Rodrigues Sacchi , Cláudio Tavares Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina Pagnoca , Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes Dias , Alana dos Santos Fukasawa, Lucila OkuyamaCaterino-de-Araujo , Adele 2022-05-16T13:44:35Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/189073Revistahttp://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/indexPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/oai||revimtsp@usp.br1678-99460036-4665opendoar:2022-12-13T16:52:58.913658Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo - Instituto de Medicina Tropical (IMT)true
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
spellingShingle COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
Campos , Karoline Rodrigues
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR
SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis
RNA extraction methods
Assays performances
Cost-effectiveness
RT-qPCR
title_short COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_full COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_fullStr COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_full_unstemmed COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
title_sort COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis: comparative analysis of different RNA extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection by two amplification protocols
author Campos , Karoline Rodrigues
author_facet Campos , Karoline Rodrigues
Sacchi , Cláudio Tavares
Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina
Pagnoca , Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes
Dias , Alana dos Santos
Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama
Caterino-de-Araujo , Adele
author_role author
author2 Sacchi , Cláudio Tavares
Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina
Pagnoca , Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes
Dias , Alana dos Santos
Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama
Caterino-de-Araujo , Adele
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Campos , Karoline Rodrigues
Sacchi , Cláudio Tavares
Gonçalves, Cláudia Regina
Pagnoca , Érica Valessa Ramos Gomes
Dias , Alana dos Santos
Fukasawa, Lucila Okuyama
Caterino-de-Araujo , Adele
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR
SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis
RNA extraction methods
Assays performances
Cost-effectiveness
RT-qPCR
topic COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR
SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis
RNA extraction methods
Assays performances
Cost-effectiveness
RT-qPCR
description The gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, which searches for SARS-CoV-2 target genes in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NP/OP) samples, and its performance depends on the quantity and quality of the RNA input. This study compared the performance and cost-effectiveness of three different kits/reagents for RNA extraction used in COVID-19 diagnosis in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A total of 300 NP/OP samples belonging to suspected cases of COVID-19 stored in a biorepository were randomly selected, and RNA was extracted using (i) automated extraction (Loccus, Extracta Kit FAST), (ii) manual extraction (BioGene Kit, Bioclin, Quibasa), and (iii) quick extraction methods (Lucigen, Quick DNA Extract Kit). Next, the samples were tested using RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 with the Allplex 2019-nCoV modified assay and the Charité-Berlin protocol. All assays/kits were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the Allplex kit, the sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 with previously extracted RNA by different procedures was 100.0% for Loccus, 100.0% for BioGene and 91.9% for Quick. Using the Charité-Berlin protocol, the sensitivities were 81.4% for Loccus, 81.2% for BioGene and 60.7% for Quick. The least sensitive target gene and the gene most affected by RNA extraction procedures was the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (Charité-Berlin protocol). No false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were detected using RNA obtained from any of the different protocols. In conclusion, Loccus and BioGene RNA extractions were efficient for RT-qPCR assays, and although the BioGene procedure is less expensive, Loccus is the best choice because it allows the rapid handling of hundreds or thousands of samples, a desirable feature during pandemics. Although less sensitive, the Quick extraction is useful during outbreaks coupled with the Allplex amplification kit for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (κ = 0.925).
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-08-02
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/article/view/189073
10.1590/S1678-9946202163052
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/article/view/189073
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/S1678-9946202163052
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/rimtsp/article/view/189073/174733
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo; Vol. 63 (2021); e52
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo; Vol. 63 (2021); e52
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo; v. 63 (2021); e52
1678-9946
0036-4665
reponame:Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
instname:Instituto de Medicina Tropical (IMT)
instacron:IMT
instname_str Instituto de Medicina Tropical (IMT)
instacron_str IMT
institution IMT
reponame_str Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
collection Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo - Instituto de Medicina Tropical (IMT)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||revimtsp@usp.br
_version_ 1798951653215305728