Dataset Information

Harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR tests to the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cycle threshold (Ct) values from SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) tests are used to measure viral burden. Calibration to the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA may improve quantitative inter-assay agreement.

Methods

WHO standard was tested using four emergency use authorized RT-qPCRs to generate calibration curves and evaluate Ct value differences. Harmonization of two assays, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 targeting E and nucleocapsid (N2) [Xpert (E) and Xpert (N2)] and a laboratory-developed test targeting E [LDT (E)], was assessed using 93 positive upper respiratory samples. Platform (target) pairs were compared via Bland-Altman analysis and Passing-Bablok regression.

Results

Ct values with the WHO standard were comparable across platforms and targets, except Xpert (N2) for which the mean difference was a median of 3.68 cycles (Interquartile Range, IQR = 3.23 to 3.76 cycles) greater than other platform (target) pairs. Using clinical samples, the mean difference of Xpert (N2) to LDT (E) was 3.64 cycles (95% Confidence Interval, CI =1.51 to 5.76). After calibration, the mean difference of Xpert (N2) to LDT (E) was 0.08 log₁₀ IU/mL (95% CI = -0.56 to 0.71) and the regression was y = 1.00x * 0.08 (95% CI slope = 0.93 to 1.07, 95% CI intercept = 0.28 to 0.42).

Conclusions

Calibration to the WHO standard resulted in the harmonization of two RT-qPCR tests, whereas analysis by Ct value alone may have led to erroneous quantitation. Harmonization to the WHO standard has the potential to improve the generalizability of clinical associations with SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels.

SUBMITTER: Sahoo MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9287539 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR tests to the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Sahoo Malaya K MK Huang ChunHong C Sibai Mamdouh M Solis Daniel D Pinsky Benjamin A BA

Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 20220716

<h4>Background</h4>Cycle threshold (Ct) values from SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) tests are used to measure viral burden. Calibration to the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA may improve quantitative inter-assay agreement.<h4>Methods</h4>WHO standard was tested using four emergency use authorized RT-qPCRs to generate calibration curves and evaluate Ct value differences. Harmonization of two assays, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 targeting E and nu ...[more]

PMID: 35944343

Similar Datasets

Project description:Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.

Dataset Information

Harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR tests to the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription quantitative PCR tests to the first WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets