Abstract
The World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and the development of reliable laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 became mandatory to identify, isolate and provide optimized care for patients early. RT-qPCR testing of respiratory secretions is routinely used to detect causative viruses in acute respiratory infection. RT-qPCR in-house protocols to detect the SARS-CoV-2 have been described. Validations of these protocols are considered a key knowledge gap for COVID-19, especially if executed in a high throughput format. Here, we investigate the analytical sensitivity and specificity of two interim RT-qPCR protocols for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 executed in a fully automated platform. Under our conditions, the N1 and RdRP (modified) showed the highest analytical sensitivity for their RNA targets. E assay, in its original concentration, was considered a tertiary confirmatory assay. Taken together, N1, RdRP (optimized) and E presented appropriated analytical sensibility and specificity in our automated RT-qPCR workflow for COVID-19 virus, E being at least 4-fold less sensitive than the others. This study highlights the importance of local validation of in-house assays before its availability to the population. The use of the synthetic RT-qPCR target to investigate novel assays diagnostic parameters in automated workflows is a quick, simple effective way to be prepared for upcoming threats. The proposed assay detected the fisrt SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazilian Central-West.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Sabin Laboratory funding 0001
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos