False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Fruehwirth,Marcelo
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Rivas,Açucena V., Fitz,Andressa F. R., Batista,Aline Cristiane C. A., Silveira,Cleypson Vinicius, Delai,Robson M.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442020000100427
Resumo: ABSTRACT Introduction: Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the gold standard method for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some factors, such as the presence of amplification inhibitors, lead to false-negative results. Objective: Here we describe the differences between rRT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 infection in normal and diluted samples, simulating the need for dilution due to the presence of amplification inhibitors. Material and method: Viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) from samples of nasopharyngeal swabs from 20 patients previously detected as “Negative” and 21 patients detected as “Positive” for SARS-CoV-2 was performed with the EasyExtract DNA-RNA kit (Interprise®). The rRT-PCR was performed with the OneStep/COVID-19 kit (IBMP), with normal and diluted (80 µl of H2O RNAse free) samples, totaling 82 tests. Results: The results indicate that there is an average variation (a < 0.05) delaying the Cq between the results of amplification of the internal control (IC), N gene (NG), and ORF1ab (OF), 1.811 Cq, 3.840 Cq, and 3.842 Cq, respectively. Discussion: The extraction kit does not completely purify the inhibitor compounds; therefore, no amplified product result may occur. In this study, we obtained a 19.04% false-negative diagnosis after sample dilution; this process reduces the efficiency of rRT-PCR to 29.8% in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Knowing the rRT-PCR standards of diluted samples can assist in the identification of false-negative cases and, consequently, avoid incorrect diagnosis.
id SBP-1_73e56d6fe01275790dd27146e8acb8e2
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1676-24442020000100427
network_acronym_str SBP-1
network_name_str Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitorsCOVID-19rRT-PCRdilutionviral diagnosisRNA extractionABSTRACT Introduction: Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the gold standard method for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some factors, such as the presence of amplification inhibitors, lead to false-negative results. Objective: Here we describe the differences between rRT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 infection in normal and diluted samples, simulating the need for dilution due to the presence of amplification inhibitors. Material and method: Viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) from samples of nasopharyngeal swabs from 20 patients previously detected as “Negative” and 21 patients detected as “Positive” for SARS-CoV-2 was performed with the EasyExtract DNA-RNA kit (Interprise®). The rRT-PCR was performed with the OneStep/COVID-19 kit (IBMP), with normal and diluted (80 µl of H2O RNAse free) samples, totaling 82 tests. Results: The results indicate that there is an average variation (a < 0.05) delaying the Cq between the results of amplification of the internal control (IC), N gene (NG), and ORF1ab (OF), 1.811 Cq, 3.840 Cq, and 3.842 Cq, respectively. Discussion: The extraction kit does not completely purify the inhibitor compounds; therefore, no amplified product result may occur. In this study, we obtained a 19.04% false-negative diagnosis after sample dilution; this process reduces the efficiency of rRT-PCR to 29.8% in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Knowing the rRT-PCR standards of diluted samples can assist in the identification of false-negative cases and, consequently, avoid incorrect diagnosis.Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica2020-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442020000100427Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial v.56 2020reponame:Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)instacron:SBP10.5935/1676-2444.20200060info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFruehwirth,MarceloRivas,Açucena V.Fitz,Andressa F. R.Batista,Aline Cristiane C. A.Silveira,Cleypson ViniciusDelai,Robson M.eng2020-11-25T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1676-24442020000100427Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jbpmlhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||jbpml@sbpc.org.br1678-47741676-2444opendoar:2020-11-25T00:00Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
title False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
spellingShingle False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
Fruehwirth,Marcelo
COVID-19
rRT-PCR
dilution
viral diagnosis
RNA extraction
title_short False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
title_full False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
title_fullStr False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
title_full_unstemmed False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
title_sort False-negative result in molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with amplification inhibitors
author Fruehwirth,Marcelo
author_facet Fruehwirth,Marcelo
Rivas,Açucena V.
Fitz,Andressa F. R.
Batista,Aline Cristiane C. A.
Silveira,Cleypson Vinicius
Delai,Robson M.
author_role author
author2 Rivas,Açucena V.
Fitz,Andressa F. R.
Batista,Aline Cristiane C. A.
Silveira,Cleypson Vinicius
Delai,Robson M.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Fruehwirth,Marcelo
Rivas,Açucena V.
Fitz,Andressa F. R.
Batista,Aline Cristiane C. A.
Silveira,Cleypson Vinicius
Delai,Robson M.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv COVID-19
rRT-PCR
dilution
viral diagnosis
RNA extraction
topic COVID-19
rRT-PCR
dilution
viral diagnosis
RNA extraction
description ABSTRACT Introduction: Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is the gold standard method for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some factors, such as the presence of amplification inhibitors, lead to false-negative results. Objective: Here we describe the differences between rRT-PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 infection in normal and diluted samples, simulating the need for dilution due to the presence of amplification inhibitors. Material and method: Viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) from samples of nasopharyngeal swabs from 20 patients previously detected as “Negative” and 21 patients detected as “Positive” for SARS-CoV-2 was performed with the EasyExtract DNA-RNA kit (Interprise®). The rRT-PCR was performed with the OneStep/COVID-19 kit (IBMP), with normal and diluted (80 µl of H2O RNAse free) samples, totaling 82 tests. Results: The results indicate that there is an average variation (a < 0.05) delaying the Cq between the results of amplification of the internal control (IC), N gene (NG), and ORF1ab (OF), 1.811 Cq, 3.840 Cq, and 3.842 Cq, respectively. Discussion: The extraction kit does not completely purify the inhibitor compounds; therefore, no amplified product result may occur. In this study, we obtained a 19.04% false-negative diagnosis after sample dilution; this process reduces the efficiency of rRT-PCR to 29.8% in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Knowing the rRT-PCR standards of diluted samples can assist in the identification of false-negative cases and, consequently, avoid incorrect diagnosis.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442020000100427
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442020000100427
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.5935/1676-2444.20200060
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv
Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv
Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial v.56 2020
reponame:Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)
instacron:SBP
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)
instacron_str SBP
institution SBP
reponame_str Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
collection Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||jbpml@sbpc.org.br
_version_ 1752122297649463296