Abstract
Objectives The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outbreak has stressed health care systems as well as medical supply chains, but diagnostic testing is an essential public health measure to control viral spread. Here we test the suitability of different RNA extraction methods for integration into a diagnostic workflow for coronavirus testing.
Methods We applied six RNA extraction methods on the same 24 SARS-CoV-2 positive patient samples and quantified their results by subsequent reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) of three viral genes. These methods included a) column-based extraction, b) phenol-chloroform extraction, as well as c) extraction using magnetic beads (i.e., one commercial kit as well as three different magnetic beads in combination with home-brewed buffers and solutions).
Results We achieved diagnostic-quality RT-PCR results with all methods, and there was no significant difference between the tested methods, except for one magnetic bead protocol with home-brewed buffers, in which the number of positive tested genes was significantly lower.
Conclusions Five of the six RNA extraction methods are interchangeable in a diagnostic workflow. Since some methods are more scalable than others, and have comparable results on RT-PCR quantitation, they may be more amenable to high-throughput sample processing pipelines.
Competing Interest Statement
RNG and WJS are shareholders of TurboBeads.
Funding Statement
There was no external funding support to this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Swiss ethics: BASEC-NR.Req-2020-00659
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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