Abstract
Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) remains a gold standard in detection of various viral diseases. In the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple RT-PCR based tests were developed to screen for viral infection. As an emergency response to growing testing demand, we established a SARS-CoV-2 PCR diagnostics platform for which we compared different commercial and in-house RT-PCR protocols. We evaluated four commercial (CDC 2019-nCoV, Applied Biosystems™ 2019-nCoV Assay Kit v1 TF-SinglePlex, 2019-nCoV Assay Kit v2 TF-MultiPlex, and EURORealTime SARS-CoV-2), one customized (Institute Pasteur), and one in-house RT-PCR protocols with 92 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 92 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples. Furthermore, we compared economical and practical characteristics of these protocols. We also developed a highly sensitive digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) method. Finally, we conducted a local environmental study for the presence and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 on different surfaces in a quarantined household using RT- and ddPCR methods. We found very low limits of detection (1 or 2 viral copies/μL), high sensitivities (93.6-97.8%) and specificities (98.7-100%) for the tested RT-PCR protocols. We further demonstrated the feasibility of downscaling two of the commercial protocols, which could optimize testing capacity. In the local environmental study, only one surface sample tested positive for viral RNA, but without detectable infectivity in vitro. Tested commercial and customized RT-PCR detection kits show very good and comparable sensitivity, and specificity, and the kits could be further optimized for use on SARS-CoV-2 viral samples derived from human and surface swabbed samples.
Competing Interest Statement
Mitchell Paul Levesque is a founder and shareholder of Oncobit, which partially funded the establishment of the novel real-time RT-PCR and ddPCR assays.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by grants received by Mitchell Paul Levesque from the University Hospital Zurich.
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:
All household swabbing participants provided informed consent for the study and both the assay establishment and household studies were approved by the Cantonal Ethics Committee: BASEC-Nr-2020-00660 and BASEC-Nr-2020-00659, respectively.
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
Footnotes
↵* – Lead author
Data Availability
Raw data (RT-PCR and ddPCR results) are available upon request.
