Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/42441
metadata.artigo.dc.title: Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19
metadata.artigo.dc.creator: van Kasteren, Puck B.
van der Veer, Bas
van den Brink, Sharon
Wijsman, Lisa
Jonge, Jørgen de
van den Brandt, Annemarie
Molenkamp, Richard
Reusken, Chantal B. E. M.
Meijer, Adam
metadata.artigo.dc.subject: Coronavirus
In vitro diagnostics
nCoV-2019
COVID-19
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)
metadata.artigo.dc.publisher: Elsevier
metadata.artigo.dc.date.issued: Jul-2020
metadata.artigo.dc.identifier.citation: VAN KASTEREN, P. B. et al. Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19. Journal of Clinical Virology, [S.l.], v. 128, July 2020.
metadata.artigo.dc.description.abstract: The final months of 2019 witnessed the emergence of a novel coronavirus in the human population. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has since spread across the globe and is posing a major burden on society. Measures taken to reduce its spread critically depend on timely and accurate identification of virus-infected individuals by the most sensitive and specific method available, i.e. real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Many commercial kits have recently become available, but their performance has not yet been independently assessed. The aim of this study was to compare basic analytical and clinical performance of selected RT-PCR kits from seven different manufacturers (Altona Diagnostics, BGI, CerTest Biotec, KH Medical, PrimerDesign, R-Biopharm AG, and Seegene). We used serial dilutions of viral RNA to establish PCR efficiency and estimate the 95 % limit of detection (LOD95). Furthermore, we ran a panel of SARS-CoV-2-positive clinical samples (n = 13) for a preliminary evaluation of clinical sensitivity. Finally, we used clinical samples positive for non-coronavirus respiratory viral infections (n = 6) and a panel of RNA from related human coronaviruses to evaluate assay specificity. PCR efficiency was ≥96 % for all assays and the estimated LOD95 varied within a 6-fold range. Using clinical samples, we observed some variations in detection rate between kits. Importantly, none of the assays showed cross-reactivity with other respiratory (corona)viruses, except as expected for the SARS-CoV-1 E-gene. We conclude that all RT-PCR kits assessed in this study may be used for routine diagnostics of COVID-19 in patients by experienced molecular diagnostic laboratories.
metadata.artigo.dc.identifier.uri: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653220301542
http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/42441
metadata.artigo.dc.language: en_US
Appears in Collections:FCS - Artigos sobre Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.