Reducing persistently positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses using long-range RT-qPCR
============================================================================

* Aartjan J.W. te Velthuis
* Dovile Juozapaite
* Charlotte V. Rigby
* Ingrida Olendraite
* Pankaj Mathur
* Kalyan Dhanorkar
* Vishalraj Hulle
* Tejas Shah
* Vijeta Jadhao
* Shravan Mutha
* Hamid Jalal
* Vikram Gopal

## Abstract

Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is regarded as the gold-standard for diagnostic testing. However, the detection of residual viral RNA genome fragments is affecting several percent of recovered patients, which unnecessarily pro-longs quarantines or delays clinical procedures. To minimize the detection of such fragments, we introduced a single modification in the COVID-19 RT-qPCR to distinguish between infectious and non-infectious viral RNA. After validation of the assay using UVC inactivation of infectious virus, we analyzed positive COVID-19 clinical samples from two different countries. We find that after 15 days of the onset of symptoms, the modified RT-qPCR protocol leads to significantly fewer positive diagnoses in persistently positive samples compared to the standard RT-qPCR test, without compromising diagnoses within 5 days of the onset of symptoms. The method may improve test-to-release protocols and expand the tools available for clinical diagnosis.

**Importance** Molecular tests can be used to detect RNA virus infections. The RT-qPCR test is currently regarded as the gold-standard, but its sensitivity to residual viral RNA genome fragments can lead to “incorrectly-positive” RT-qPCR results. Such results are different from false-positive RT-qPCR results, which can be generated due to in vitro cross-reactivity or contaminations. However, the detection of RNA fragments leads to similar incorrect conclusions about the presence of infectious virus long after a patient has recovered from a viral infection and thus false-positive diagnoses. We here modified a commercial RT-qPCR kit to make it less sensitive to residual viral RNA genome fragments, reducing the likelihood for such results in recovered COVID-19 patients. The method may improve test-to-release protocols, expand the tools available for clinical testing, and help reduce hospital encumbrance.

Key words
*   SARS-CoV-2
*   influenza A virus
*   RT-qPCR
*   UVC inactivation
*   long-range

## Introduction

Respiratory RNA viruses, such as influenza and coronaviruses, are important human pathogens that have substantial impact on our healthcare systems and economy (1, 2). The detection of viral RNA infections in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients is essential to prevent respiratory virus spread, monitor patient recovery, and perform triage in hospitals. Currently, reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-based tests are considered the gold-standard for the detection of viral RNA in clinical samples.

RT-qPCR assays consist of two steps: cDNA synthesis and PCR amplification (Fig. 1). Typically, random hexamers are used for cDNA synthesis. These primers can bind anywhere in the viral genome and to remnants of viral RNA genomes (Fig. 1A), making it more complicated to distinguish between infectious and non-infectious viral genomes. Indeed, the contribution of genome fragments to the RT-qPCR signal has been proposed as explanation for the persistence of positive signals in several percent of recovered Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients (3-5), potentially affecting the lives of millions of people worldwide.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/12/02/2021.11.11.21266219/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/02/2021.11.11.21266219/F1)

Figure 1. 
Schematic of differential RT-qPCR detection of intact or fragmented viral RNA using an RT step that is dependent on random hexamers or a primer binding to the 3′ terminus of the viral RNA.

To minimize the synthesis of cDNA molecules from viral RNA genome fragments, we here used an oligonucleotide that binds to the 3′ end of the viral genome to ensure that only intact viral genomes lead to a long cDNA product that serve as qPCR template. When the viral genome contains breaks, cDNA synthesis will stop at the breakpoints (Fig. 1). We find that the long-range RT-qPCR method facilitates the differential detection of infectious and non-infectious virus, in agreement with previous influenza A virus studies (6, 7). Moreover, the RT-qPCR method leads to significantly fewer positive diagnoses in clinical samples that were persistently positive after COVID-19 recovery, but not in samples obtained within the first 5 days of the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. These findings suggest that the long-range RT-qPCR method can be used to exclude non-infectious from persistently positive COVID-19 cases.

## Results

### Detection of infectious and non-infectious influenza A virus

Ultraviolet C (UVC) can create cross-links or breaks in nucleic acid strands and inactivate influenza A virus (6, 8, 9) and SARS-CoV-2 (10-15). To investigate the ability of RT-qPCR methods to distinguish between infectious and non-infectious RNA viruses, we first inactivated influenza A virus strain A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) using UVC. Following optimization and calibration of our instrument (Fig. 2A), we exposed 25 µl 106 pfu/ml influenza A virus to 54 W of UVC for 5 to 60 seconds. The exposed virus was subsequently serially diluted to determine the virus titer by plaque assay and found to be completely inactivated after 60 seconds (Fig. 2A). Viral RNA was next extracted and cDNA generated using random hexamers or a universal influenza A virus primer capable of binding to the 3′ end of the viral genome. cDNA levels were subsequently analyzed using primer sets specific for the influenza A virus M or NA segment (Fig. 2B and 2C, respectively). qPCR signals obtained with the 3′ end cDNA showed an increase in Ct value that was strongly correlated with the virus titer and length of UVC exposure (Fig. 2C). No effect of UVC was observed on the viral nucleoprotein, which forms ribonucleoprotein complexes with the viral RNA (16) (Fig. 2B). By contrast, the qPCR signal obtained with the random hexamers showed a smaller change in Ct value (Fig. 2C). Together these results suggest that a long-range RT-qPCR protocol that uses a primer that binds to the 3′ end of the viral genome during the cDNA synthesis reaction provides the best estimate of the infectious viral titer.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/12/02/2021.11.11.21266219/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/02/2021.11.11.21266219/F2)

Figure 2. 
Relation between influenza A virus inactivation and Ct value. (**A**) The UVC intensity was measured for every exposure (left) and the effect of UVC on the virus titer determined by plaque assay (right). Influenza A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) virus was placed on a plastic surface and exposed for 5 to 60 seconds at 11 to 54 W UVC. (**B**) Top - gel electrophoresis analysis of M segment RT-PCR signal after UVC exposure at 54W. The RT step was performed using a universal influenza A virus 3′ terminal RT primer. Bottom - western analysis using an antibody specific for the influenza A virus NP protein. (**C**) Relation between UVC exposure at 54 W, the influenza A virus A/WSN/1933 titer, and the qPCR signal following RT reactions with random hexamers or a universal influenza A virus primer capable of binding to the 3′ terminus of each of the eight viral RNA segments. qPCR was performed using primers specific for the NA segment. Plaque assay results that were not detectable (n.d.; open squares) are indicated. RT-qPCR signals that were not detectable are shown as Ct = 40 on graph.

### SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection

To investigate if a 3′ RT primer can differentiate between UVC-exposed and unexposed SARS-CoV-2 RNA, SARS-CoV-2 RNA from infected cells was exposed to 54 W of UVC for 0 to 120 sec. Next, RT reactions were performed using random hexamers or an oligo-dT20 primer capable of binding to the 3′ polyA-tail of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome. Subsequent qPCR analysis using CDC-recommended primer sets targeting the N and ORF1ab coding regions showed a clear change in the Ct value as function of the exposure time for the 3′ samples amplified with both primer sets (Fig. 3A), but a relatively limited change in Ct value for the random hexamer samples with both primer sets (Fig. 3A). We next exposed COVID-19 clinical samples to UVC and detected the intact viral RNA genome levels using random hexamer or oligo-dT20 for the cDNA synthesis. As shown in Fig. 3B, we observed a significant difference between the UVC exposed and unexposed samples using the oligo-dT20 method, but not using random hexamers.

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/12/02/2021.11.11.21266219/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/02/2021.11.11.21266219/F3)

Figure 3. 
Differential detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. (**A**) RT-qPCR of SARS-CoV-2 RNA following UVC exposure for 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 or 60 seconds at 54 W UVC. Data were fit with linear regression. Signals that were not detectable (n.d.) are indicated with open squares. (**B**) RT-qPCR of COVID-19 clinical samples following 0 or 120 seconds of 54W of UVC exposure. (**C**) RT-qPCR of COVID-19 clinical samples obtained within 5 days of the onset of clinical symptoms or after 15 days following the onset of clinical symptoms. RT-qPCR signals that were not detectable are shown as open squares at Ct = 40 on graph. Significance was tested using one-way ANOVA with multiple corrections. Not significant (n.s.), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (\***|).

Finally, we investigated if the two RT-qPCR methods yielded different results over the course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. To this end, we analyzed clinical samples obtained within the first 5 days of the onset of symptoms (i.e., when SARS-CoV-2 infected patients are infectious) and samples obtained at least 15 days after the onset of symptoms (i.e., when most patients have recovered). As shown in Fig. 3C and Table S1, we observed no significant difference between the two RT-qPCR methods for the COVID-19 samples taken withing 5 days of the onset of symptoms, suggesting that they are equally efficient at detecting infectious viral RNA levels in clinical samples. However, a significant difference was observed in samples obtained more than 15 days after the onset of symptoms (Fig. 3C), with 7 out of 10 long-range RT-qPCR reactions producing no detectable signals for both qPCR primer sets, while all (n=10) standard RT-qPCR samples returned positive signals for at least one of the qPCR primer sets (Table S2).

## Discussion

We here used primers that bind to the 3′ terminus of the influenza A virus genome segments, or SARS-CoV-2 genome and subgenomic mRNAs to eliminate the detection of inactivated viral RNA by RT-qPCR. Our results confirm previous observations with influenza A viruses (6, 7) that this long-range RT-qPCR protocol more closely matches the measurements of infectious virus levels using plaque assays than RT-qPCR methods primed with random hexamers. We demonstrate that the long-range RT-qPCR shows significantly reduced positive SARS-CoV-2 results in nasopharyngeal samples taken more than 15 days after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, within 5 days of the onset of symptoms, we observed no significant differences, suggesting that the two methods do not have an inherent different sensitivity for detection infectious COVID-19 cases. Previous research has shown that COVID-19 patients can test positive for SARS-CoV-2 long after recovery (5). Our method can be used to reduce these persistently positive RT-qPCR tests, and enable diagnostics labs to distinguish better between false-positive cases and reinfections.

## Methods

### Ethics nasopharyngeal swabs

Nasopharyngeal swabs for UVC inactivation study were obtained by Krsnaa Diagnostics Ltd. (KDL). Our use of these swabs was reviewed by the National Accreditation Board for testing and calibration Laboratories (NABL) and the authorized signatories of KDL for the Late. Jayabai Nanasaheb Sutar Hospital, and approved on 22 June 2021. KDL is accredited by the NABL with ISO 15189:2012 compliance and approved by ICMR, with ICMR code KDPLP. Nasopharyngeal swab samples for the time-course analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infections were obtained from Vilnius Santaros Klinikos Biobank (Vilnius, Lithuania). The investigation was approved by Vilnius Regional Bioethics Committee (approval number 2021/5-1342-818).

### Viruses and cells

HEK 293T, Vero-E6 and MDCK cells were originally sourced from ATCC. Influenza A/WSN/33 (H1N1) virus was produced by transfecting a 12-plasmid rescue system into HEK 293T cells (17). After two days, the P0 virus was amplified on MDCK cells in Minimal Essential Medium (MEM; Gibco) containing 0.5% fetal bovine serum (FBS; Sigma) at 37 °C and 5% CO2. P1 and P2 viruses were aliquoted and stored at −70 °C. SARS-CoV-2 Bavpat-1 was grown on Vero-E6 cells in Dulbecco’s Minimal Essential Medium (DMEM; Gibco) containing 0.5% FBS at 37 °C and 5% CO2. Viral RNA was extracted using Trizol (Invitrogen) as described previously (18).

### UVC chamber and exposure

For UVC exposure, we used a Suraxa® UVC chamber (Pune Instrumentation Private Limited (PIPL)). The unit contained four 254 nm UVC light tubes (Philips) whose output could be adjusted manually and measured using a UV light power meter placed in the center of the unit. The setting used were 11, 32, 43 or 54 W. Samples were placed in a polystyrene well (TRP product number 92012) and positioned, without lid, on the bottom rack in the middle of the UVC chamber. UVC exposures were subsequently performed as indicated in the results section and figures. After UVC exposure, virus was eluted using 275 µl PBS/0.05% Tween-80 (19) and transferred to 1.5 ml tubes for plaque assays.

### Plaque assays

Plaque assays were performed as described previously (19). Briefly, samples were serially diluted in MEM containing 0.5% FBS. Two hundred µl of diluted virus was next added to confluent MDCK cells and incubated for 1 hour 37 °C. After virus adsorption to the MDCK cells, the inoculum was removed and replaced with 2 ml MEM/agarose overlay (MEM, 0.5% FBS, 1% agarose). Plaques were grown for 2 days at 37 °C and then fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS. Plaques were counter-stained with 0.01% crystal violet in water and washed with tap water before analysis.

### RT-qPCR analysis of influenza A virus RNA levels

Viral RNA was extracted from 50 µl of elution material using Trizol (Invitrogen) as described previously (18). Extracted RNA was resuspended in 10 µl water. Next, 1 µl of viral RNA was used for reverse transcription with universal influenza 3′ primer TUMI 12G or random hexamers (Thermo Fisher) and SuperScript III (Invitrogen). qPCR was performed using primers specific for the NA segment (20) and Brilliant III Master Mix with high Rox (Agilent) on a Step-One plus qPCR machine.

### RT-qPCR analysis of UVC exposed SARS-CoV-2 RNA samples

Viral RNA was extracted from 50 µl of elution material using Trizol (Invitrogen) as described previously (18). Extracted RNA was resuspended in 10 µl water. Next, 1 µl of viral RNA was used for reverse transcription with oligo-dT20 (Thermo Fisher) or random hexamers and SuperScript III. qPCR was performed using previously described primers specific for the ORF1ab or N coding regions (21). The qPCR was run and analyzed on a QuantStudio 5 or Step-One plus qPCR machine according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

### RT-qPCR analysis of persistently positive time course samples

Viral RNA was extracted using the MagMAX Viral/Pathogen Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit (Thermo Fisher). Next, 4 µl of RNA was mixed with 1 µl of 50 µM oligo-dT20 (Thermo Fisher) and 6.4 µl of water. The primer/RNA mix was incubated for 2-3 min at 95 °C and immediately placed on ice afterwards. cDNA produced using Maxima H minus reverse transcriptase (Thermo Fisher) at 50 °C for 1 hour according to the manufacturer’s instructions. qPCR analysis was performed by adding 5 µl of cDNA to a TaqPath qPCR reaction (Thermo Fisher). The qPCR was started with a 2 min 95 °C denaturation step to inactivate the RT enzyme in the TaqPath kit. This was then followed by 40 cycles of 3 sec 95 °C and 30 seconds at 60 °C. The reactions were analyzed on a QuantStudio 5 qPCR machine.

### Statistics

For statistical testing, we used one-way ANOVA and multiple corrections. Statistical testing was performed using GraphPad Prism 9.0.

### Role of the funding sources

The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or writing of the manuscript.

## Supporting information

Table S1 [[supplements/266219_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are provided as supplemental tables or available upon reasonable request to the authors

## Author contributions

Conceived study: AJWtV, VG. Designed and performed experiments: AJWtV, CR, DJ, IO. Contributed reagents and equipment: PM, KD, VH, TS, VJ, SM, VG. Reviewed and performed data analysis: AJWtV, DJ, CR, IO, VG. Wrote manuscript draft: AJWtV. Contributed to manuscript finalization: AJWtV, DJ, CR, IO, PM, KD, VH, TS, VJ, SM, HJ, VG.

## Data sharing

Ct values of COVID-19 clinical samples are provided in supplemental tables. Reagents and other data are available upon request.

## Declaration of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

## Acknowledgments

AJWtV is supported by joint Wellcome Trust and Royal Society grant 206579/Z/17/Z. CR is supported by PhD training grant G107570 from Public Health England awarded to AJWtV and HJ.

## Footnotes

*   Corrected spelling author names. Corrected title.

*   Received November 11, 2021.
*   Revision received December 2, 2021.
*   Accepted December 2, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1. J. K. Taubenberger,  D. M. Morens, Pandemic influenza--including a risk assessment of H5N1. Rev Sci Tech 28, 187–202 (2009).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.20506/rst.28.1.1879&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19618626&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F02%2F2021.11.11.21266219.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267386500013&link_type=ISI) 

2.  2. R. A. Medina,  A. Garcia-Sastre, Influenza A viruses: new research developments. Nat Rev Microbiol 9, 590–603 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrmicro2613&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21747392&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F02%2F2021.11.11.21266219.atom) 

3.  3. S. Ikegami et al., Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab PCR positivity in COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors. Transfusion 60, 2962–2968 (2020).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32840002&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F02%2F2021.11.11.21266219.atom) 

4.  4. C. D. Mack et al., SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Risk Among National Basketball Association Players, Staff, and Vendors Exposed to Individuals With Positive Test Results After COVID-19 Recovery During the 2020 Regular and Postseason. JAMA Intern Med 181, 960–966 (2021).
    
    

5.  5. L. Lan et al., Positive RT-PCR Test Results in Patients Recovered From COVID-19. JAMA 323, 1502–1503 (2020).
    
    

6.  6. Y. Nakaya,  T. Fukuda,  H. Ashiba,  M. Yasuura,  M. Fujimaki, Quick assessment of influenza a virus infectivity with a long-range reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. BMC Infect Dis 20, 585 (2020).
    
    

7.  7. D. Li,  A. De Keuckelaere,  M. Uyttendaele, Application of long-range and binding reverse transcription-quantitative PCR to indicate the viral integrities of noroviruses. Appl Environ Microbiol 80, 6473–6479 (2014).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWVtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI4MC8yMC82NDczIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTIvMDIvMjAyMS4xMS4xMS4yMTI2NjIxOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

8.  8. J. J. McDevitt,  S. N. Rudnick,  L. J. Radonovich, Aerosol susceptibility of influenza virus to UV-C light. Appl Environ Microbiol 78, 1666–1669 (2012).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWVtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6Ijc4LzYvMTY2NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzEyLzAyLzIwMjEuMTEuMTEuMjEyNjYyMTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

9.  9. E. I. Budowsky,  S. E. Bresler,  E. A. Friedman,  N. V. Zheleznova, Principles of selective inactivation of viral genome. I. UV-induced inactivation of influenza virus. Arch Virol 68, 239–247 (1981).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/BF01314577&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7271457&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F02%2F2021.11.11.21266219.atom) 

10. 10. C. W. Lo et al., UVC disinfects SARS-CoV-2 by induction of viral genome damage without apparent effects on viral morphology and proteins. Sci Rep 11, 13804 (2021).
    
    

11. 11. A. Gardner,  S. Ghosh,  M. Dunowska,  G. Brightwell, Virucidal Efficacy of Blue LED and Far-UVC Light Disinfection against Feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus as a Model for SARS-CoV-2. Viruses 13 (2021).
    
    

12. 12. M. Bormann et al., Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 Contaminated Surfaces of Personal Items with UVC-LED Disinfection Boxes. Viruses 13 (2021).
    
    

13. 13. W. K. Jung,  K. T. Park,  K. S. Lyoo,  S. J. Park,  Y. H. Park, Demonstration of Antiviral Activity of far-UVC Microplasma Lamp Irradiation Against SARS-CoV-2. Clin Lab 67 (2021).
    
    

14. 14. Y. Qiao et al., Greater than 3-Log Reduction in Viable Coronavirus Aerosol Concentration in Ducted Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) Systems. Environ Sci Technol 55, 4174–4182 (2021).
    
    

15. 15. Y. Gerchman,  H. Mamane,  N. Friedman,  M. Mandelboim, UV-LED disinfection of Coronavirus: Wavelength effect. J Photochem Photobiol B 212, 112044 (2020).
    
    

16. 16. A. J. te Velthuis,  J. M. Grimes,  E. Fodor, Structural insights into RNA polymerases of negative-sense RNA viruses. Nat Rev Microbiol, 1–16 (2021).
    
    

17. 17. E. Fodor et al., Rescue of Influenza A Virus from Recombinant DNA. Journal of Virology 73, 9679–9682 (1999).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3My8xMS85Njc5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTIvMDIvMjAyMS4xMS4xMS4yMTI2NjIxOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

18. 18. A. J. W. Te Velthuis,  J. S. Long,  W. S. Barclay, Assays to Measure the Activity of Influenza Virus Polymerase. Methods Mol Biol 1836, 343–374 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/978-1-4939-8678-1_17&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30151582&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F02%2F2021.11.11.21266219.atom) 

19. 19. V. Gopal et al., Zinc-Embedded Polyamide Fabrics Inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A Virus. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 13, 30317–30325 (2021).
    
    

20. 20. A. J. W. Te Velthuis et al., Mini viral RNAs act as innate immune agonists during influenza virus infection. Nat Microbiol 3, 1234–1242 (2018).
    
    

21. 21. A. Reusken et al., Laboratory readiness and response for novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in expert laboratories in 30 EU/EEA countries, January 2020. Euro Surveill 25 (2020).