Suppr超能文献

基于提取和洗脱的聚合酶链反应检测与自动化和快速抗原检测在严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2 诊断中的比较。

Comparison of extraction-based and elution-based polymerase chain reaction testing, and automated and rapid antigen testing for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

机构信息

Division of Infection Control and Prevention, Osaka University Hospital, Suita, Japan.

Laboratory for Clinical Investigation, Osaka University Hospital, Suita, Japan.

出版信息

J Med Virol. 2022 Jul;94(7):3155-3159. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27709. Epub 2022 Mar 22.

Abstract

We aimed to compare the differences in testing performance of extraction-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, elution-based direct PCR assay, and rapid antigen detection tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used nasopharyngeal swab samples of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We used the MagNA Pure 24 System (Roche Diagnostics K.K.) or magLEAD 12gC (Precision System Science Co., Ltd.) for RNA extraction, mixed the concentrates with either the LightMix Modular SARS-CoV PCR mixture (Roche Diagnostics K.K.) or Takara SARS-CoV-2 direct PCR detection kit (Takara Bio Inc.), and amplified it using COBAS® z480 (Roche Diagnostics K.K.). For elution-based PCR, we directly applied clinical samples to the Takara SARS-CoV-2 direct PCR detection kit before the same amplification step. Additionally, we performed Espline SARS-CoV-2 (Fuji Rebio Co., Ltd.) for rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and used Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Fuji Rebio Co., Ltd.) and Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Roche Diagnostics K.K.) for automated antigen tests (ATs). Extraction-based and elution-based PCR tests detected the virus up to 214-216 and 210 times dilution, respectively. ATs remained positive up to 24-26 times dilution, while RDT became negative after 22 dilutions. For 153 positive samples, positivity rates of the extraction-based PCR assay were 85.6% to 98.0%, while that of the elution-based PCR assay was 73.2%. Based on the RNA concentration process, extraction-based PCR assays were superior to elution-based direct PCR assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

摘要

我们旨在比较基于提取的聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测、洗脱直接 PCR 检测和严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)快速抗原检测在检测性能上的差异。我们使用了新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)患者的鼻咽拭子样本。我们使用 MagNA Pure 24 系统(罗氏诊断公司)或 magLEAD 12gC(精密系统科学有限公司)进行 RNA 提取,将浓缩物与 LightMix Modular SARS-CoV PCR 混合物(罗氏诊断公司)或 Takara SARS-CoV-2 直接 PCR 检测试剂盒(宝生物工程有限公司)混合,并使用 COBAS® z480(罗氏诊断公司)进行扩增。对于洗脱直接 PCR,我们在进行相同的扩增步骤之前,直接将临床样本应用于 Takara SARS-CoV-2 直接 PCR 检测试剂盒。此外,我们还进行了 Espline SARS-CoV-2(富士瑞必欧株式会社)的快速诊断检测(RDT),并使用 Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 抗原(富士瑞必欧株式会社)和 Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 抗原(罗氏诊断公司)进行自动化抗原检测(AT)。基于提取的 PCR 检测和洗脱直接 PCR 检测分别可检测到病毒稀释 214-216 倍和 210 倍。AT 仍可检测到 24-26 倍稀释的阳性,而 RDT 在 22 倍稀释后变为阴性。对于 153 个阳性样本,基于提取的 PCR 检测的阳性率为 85.6%至 98.0%,而洗脱直接 PCR 检测的阳性率为 73.2%。基于 RNA 浓度处理,提取的 PCR 检测在检测 SARS-CoV-2 方面优于洗脱直接 PCR 检测。

相似文献

4
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-Based Detection Using Saliva or Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens in Asymptomatic Populations.
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Sep 3;9(1):e0006221. doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00062-21. Epub 2021 Aug 25.
6
High-Throughput COVID-19 Testing of Naso-Oropharyngeal Swabs Using a Sensitive Extraction-Free Sample Preparation Method.
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Aug 31;10(4):e0135822. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01358-22. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
9
Comparison of four commercial, automated antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.
Med Microbiol Immunol. 2021 Dec;210(5-6):263-275. doi: 10.1007/s00430-021-00719-0. Epub 2021 Aug 20.
10
Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 May;28(5):695-700. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.07.039. Epub 2021 Aug 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Performance characteristics of INDICAID antigen rapid diagnostic test on SARS-CoV-2 samples during the omicron wave in Cameroon.
Heliyon. 2024 Apr 19;10(9):e29937. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29937. eCollection 2024 May 15.

本文引用的文献

1
Molecular accuracy vs antigenic speed: SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.
Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2022 Feb;62:152-158. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2021.12.006. Epub 2021 Dec 21.
2
SARS-CoV-2 and Variant Diagnostic Testing Approaches in the United States.
Viruses. 2021 Dec 13;13(12):2492. doi: 10.3390/v13122492.
3
Diagnostics for COVID-19: moving from pandemic response to control.
Lancet. 2022 Feb 19;399(10326):757-768. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02346-1. Epub 2021 Dec 20.
4
Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: a new chapter in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lancet. 2021 Dec 11;398(10317):2126-2128. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02758-6. Epub 2021 Dec 3.
5
Clinical usefulness of extraction-free PCR assay to detect SARS-CoV-2.
J Virol Methods. 2021 Oct;296:114217. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114217. Epub 2021 Jun 24.
6
False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review.
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 10;15(12):e0242958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242958. eCollection 2020.
7
Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests.
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021 Mar;19(3):171-183. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-00461-z. Epub 2020 Oct 14.
8
Simulation of pooled-sample analysis strategies for COVID-19 mass testing.
Bull World Health Organ. 2020 Sep 1;98(9):590-598. doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.257188. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
9
Massive and rapid COVID-19 testing is feasible by extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.
Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 23;11(1):4812. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18611-5.
10
Efficacy of a novel SARS-CoV-2 detection kit without RNA extraction and purification.
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;98:16-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.074. Epub 2020 Jun 26.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验