Large-scale implementation of pooled RNA-extraction and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection

Introduction

An emerging novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is the virus behind the global COVID-19 pandemic. Among the foremost priorities to facilitate efficient public health interventions is a reliable and accessible diagnosis of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection. The standard laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 involves three main steps, namely, viral inactivation and lysis of the nasopharyngeal swab sample, extraction (or purification) of viral RNA, and reverse transcription (RT)-PCR. Due to the rapid spread of the virus and the increasing demand for tests, the limited availability of test reagents, mainly RNA extraction kits, has become (and is likely to continue to be) a major bottleneck as the pandemic expands.

Of particular importance is the ability to survey large asymptomatic populations- (1) to trace asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers which are otherwise difficult to identify and isolate; (2) to assure key personnel (e.g. healthcare personnel) are not contagious; (3) to screen high risk populations (such as nursing homes) to help protect them; (4) to accurately estimate the spread of the infection and the effectiveness of community measures and social distancing; and (5) to allow and monitor a safe return to work. Clearly, more efficient and higher-throughput diagnostic approaches are needed to support such efforts.

Several attempts to address this challenge have already been suggested, that can be categorized into three major approaches. The first approach is to replace PCR based methods by other direct diagnostic methods such as Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP)^1–3 and CRISPR based diagnostic tools^4–6, the second approach involves serological surveys^7–10, and the third approach involves the improvement of the PCR methods capacity by optimization and automation^11–13 or by reducing the required number of tests via pooling samples together, known as group testing.

Group testing is a field of research in the intersection of mathematics, computer science and information theory, with applications in biology, communication and more. A group testing algorithm is a testing scheme which is directed towards minimizing the number of tests conducted on a set of samples by using the ability to test pooled subsets of samples. If a pool of n samples tests negative, all samples must be negative, and therefore their status has been determined in only one test instead of n individual tests. Various group testing algorithms exist, with different assumptions and constraints^14,15. While many such algorithms, most notably binary splitting, may be very efficient in theory, they might be unsuitable because of practical limitations. Three such limitations might be: (1) a limit on the number of stages due to the importance of delivering a test result quickly, exemplified by the urgent clinical context of COVID-19 diagnosis; (2) a limit on the ability to dilute samples and still safely identify a single positive sample in a pool; (3) favorability of simple algorithms which may minimize human error in a laboratory setting.

While several pooling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 detection were recently suggested^16–21, these works mostly discussed theoretical considerations. Here we describe and demonstrate practical pooling solutions that save time and reagents by performing RNA extraction and RT-PCR on pooled samples. Unlike other suggestions of large-scale pooling and non-PCR-based methods, we maintain high sensitivity, and therefore the method complies with current clinical requirements. The simplicity of the method, similarity to currently approved procedures, and the fact that we do not require special sample handling or additional information make it easily adoptable on a large scale. We offer two such pooling approaches, based either on simple (Dorfman) pooling or matrix pooling^22,23, and demonstrate their efficiency and sensitivity in the daily reality of SARS-CoV-2-infected clinical cases. Under current clinical diagnosis parameters these methods allow 5-fold to 7.5-fold increase in throughput when applied to populations with < 1% positives, including screened asymptomatic healthcare personnel and essential industries’ employees.

Results

At the Hadassah Medical Center, two distinct populations of people are tested for SARS-CoV-2 at present. First, we receive samples from symptomatic patients, from the hospital and from the community. In these samples, about 10% of SARS-CoV-2 tests are positive. Second, we receive samples from prospectively screened asymptomatic populations such as hospital employees and workers in essential industries. Among the latter, individual testing of >2,000 samples revealed that the rate of positives ranged between 0.1% and 1%. Based on these findings, we examined the feasibility of pooled testing for asymptomatic populations, and designed appropriate pooling strategies.

A key requirement of pooled RNA extraction and RT-PCR tests is to retain sufficient sensitivity. In our RT-PCR assay, a sample is defined as positive if the viral genome is detected at threshold cycle (Ct) values ≤35, as indeterminate at Ct values >35 and ≤38, and as negative at Ct values >38. Theoretically, pooling 8 samples should elevate the Ct of a single positive sample by 3 cycles, and pooling 16 samples should elevate the Ct by 4 cycles. However, reproducibility of RNA extraction and RT-PCR might be affected by other factors. We therefore empirically tested the assay sensitivity, when multiple negative samples and one positive sample were mixed at the lysate stage. As shown in Figure 1, positive samples were readily detected, even when their individual Ct ranged between 35 and 38. Thus, SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reliably detected in pooled samples without compromising the assay sensitivity.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Pooling 8 lysates retain clinical sensitivity. Shown are results of 23 pooling experiments, with 8 lysates in each pool; 15 pools with positive samples indeed come up positive (pools 1–15), 3 pools without positive samples come up negative (pools 20, 21, 23), and 4 out of 5 pools containing a single indeterminate sample detected as indeterminate (pools 16, 17, 18, 19, 22); Pools containing 1–2 samples with low amount of SARS-CoV-2 are detected at a similar Ct (pools 9–18), showing clinical sensitivity is retained and the risk of false negatives is minimal. UD= Undetected.

The first pooling strategy is a simple two-stage testing algorithm known as Dorfman pooling²⁴. In the first stage, the samples are divided into disjoint pools of n samples each, and each such pool is tested. A negative result implies that all samples in the pool are negative, while a positive result implies that at least one sample in the pool is positive. In the second stage, the samples of each pool that tested positive are individually tested. While such approaches for SARS-CoV-2 have been recently suggested, we have tested direct pooling of lysates of clinical nasopharyngeal samples, with RNA extraction already performed on the pooled samples. First, we tested the pooling of 184 consecutive samples into 23 pools of 8 samples each, and also tested in parallel each sample individually. This approach yielded highly accurate results, with no loss of diagnostic assay sensitivity: each of the pools that contained one or more positive samples was found to be positive, and all the pools that contained only negative samples were found to be negative (Figure 1). Of the 5 pools which contained one individual sample with an “indeterminate” result (in each pool), one was found to be negative suggesting potential yet negligible loss of sensitivity.

To further reduce the need to retest positive pools we have also tested a two-stage matrix pooling strategy^22,23, where n² samples are ordered in an n × n matrix. Each row and each column are pooled, resulting in 2n tests, times less tests than individual testing. If either the number of positive rows or columns is one, the positive samples can be uniquely identified at the intersections of the positive rows and columns. Otherwise, if both the number of positive rows and columns is greater than one, intersections of positive rows and columns will be retested individually. We have tested this approach with pooling 75 samples into three 5 × 5 matrices, and identified all positive samples accurately (Figure 2). Importantly, the positive samples were detected in both the row and the column pools at a similar cycle in all three tested matrices, suggesting the pooling scheme is robust.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Matrix pooling. (a) Scheme for 5×5 matrix pooling. 25 samples sorted in a 5 × 5 matrix and each row and each column is pooled into a total of 10 pools, on which RNA extraction, reverse transcription and qPCR are performed. In this illustration row B and column 3 are positive (black stars), hence sample B3 is the only positive sample. If more than one row and one column are positive then all the samples in the intersection need to be retested, as some may be negative. (b) Three 5×5 pool matrices were generated (30 pools from 75 lysates). Each matrix (25 lysates that were previously tested individually) included a single lysate positive for SARS-COV-2. As expected, only 6 pools (one row and one column per matrix) were positive for SARS-COV-2, while 24 pools had Ct >40 (Undetected). RT-PCR Ct values of positive pools were nearly identical in the column pool (green) and the row pool (blue), and similar to the values of the individual test of the positive sample (gray).

Given the successful validation of both pooling strategies, we have adopted a Dorfman pooling protocol of 1:8 and employed it for the routine testing of nasopharyngeal swab samples from screened asymptomatic healthcare personnel, employees of essential industries, and residents and employees of nursing homes. Individual barcoded samples were received at the laboratory, inactivated by lysis buffer, pooled on a Tecan liquid-handling robot, and the pools were processed on a Qiasymphony robot for RNA extraction, and analyzed by RT-PCR. Results were interpreted and samples in positive pools were subsequently individually tested. Note that analysis of pool results requires close attention to indeterminate-result pools, showing a signal at 35 < Ct < 38, as these may contain individual positive samples. Therefore, criteria for retesting pools must be more stringent, e.g. a signal with Ct ~38 would be defined as negative when individual samples are tested, but warrants re-testing of individual samples when encountered in a pool (see Table 1, batch 3).

At the time of submission of this manuscript, we have already tested 5,464 samples by pooling, thereby using 731 RNA extraction and RT-PCR reactions (a mere 13% of kits that would have been used in the full individual testing). Among these samples, we have identified and individually validated six positive samples, corresponding to a rate of 0.11% (Table 1).

Discussion

An important consideration before implementing group testing is the expected rate of false positive and false negative results. Based on our experience with >2000 samples from asymptomatic individuals, we did not encounter any false positives in the pools, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. False negatives are in principle more worrisome when testing in pools, because samples that failed at the RNA extraction step will be missed (while our individual testing includes amplification of a human transcript serving as an internal control for proper RNA extraction and RT-PCR of each sample). To define the magnitude of this potential problem, we examined a set of 13,781 tests done at our center, which were all expected to show a signal for a human gene serving as internal assay control. Amplification of the human gene failed in 52 samples (0.38% of the cases). Thus, we estimate that our current protocol of pooled sampling carries a risk of missing 0.38% of the positive samples. In a population of 1,000,000 individuals tested, of which 1,000 are positive (rate of 0.1%), this predicts that 4 positive individuals will be missed when using pools. We posit that this is a tolerable situation, particularly given the potentially much higher rates of false negative results due to swab sampling and other errors upstream.

The prevalence of COVID-19 in the tested population is not always known, which could affect the optimal pool size. This could be addressed either by other external estimates, such as a previous run of individual samples, rate of symptomatic patients, or alternative methods such as serological screening or wastewater titers monitoring²⁵. Alternatively, it is possible to dynamically adapt pooling sizes, when the measured rate of positive samples is different than expected. Finally, there exist some group testing algorithms^15,26 for the purpose of estimating the number of positive samples while using a relatively small (logarithmic) amount of tests, and such algorithms may be adapted to clinical constraints and parameters.

Future improvement of the sensitivity of the test, such as better sets of primers, improved sample collection and inclusion of information about pre-test probability will allow retaining sensitivity even when pooling a large number of sample lysates together. This will enable further improving efficiency, especially when prevalence is low, by increasing the pool size.

In summary, we demonstrate in a real-life situation the usefulness of pooled sampling starting at the early lysate stage. This saves time, work and reagents, allowing a considerable throughput increase of clinical diagnostic labs and opening the door for efficient screening of large asymptomatic populations for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Specifically, we have demonstrated that pooling lysates from 5 or 8 nasopharyngeal swab samples retains the sensitivity of viral RNA detection, allowing identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals, and expected throughput increase of 5-fold to 7.5-fold.

Methods