Comparative Analysis of Threshold Cycle Results for RNA Extraction in SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR Using Magnetic Beads and Spin Column Methods

Fardiah Tilawati Sitanggang, James Perdinan Simanjuntak, Nasrah Nasrah, Ridwansyah Ridwansyah, Arvida Bar
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Threshold Cycle Results for RNA Extraction in SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR Using Magnetic Beads and Spin Column Methods","authors":"Fardiah Tilawati Sitanggang, James Perdinan Simanjuntak, Nasrah Nasrah, Ridwansyah Ridwansyah, Arvida Bar","doi":"10.21931/rb/2024.09.01.64","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) belongs to the large family of SARS-CoV viruses, initially emerging\nin 2002-2003. In humans, this virus triggers respiratory infectious diseases. COVID-19, a new variant of\nSARS-CoV, was identified in humans following an unprecedented incident in Wuhan, China, in December\n2019. This virus typically manifests mild symptoms, including a runny nose, sore throat, cough, and fever.\nThe Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT), specifically the realtime Reverse Transcription Polymerase\nChain Reaction (rRT-PCR) examination, is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for diagnosing COVID-19. This study assessed potential differences in Threshold Cycle results during RNA extraction using magnetic beads compared to spin columns in the SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR method. The population for this study was selected through accidental sampling from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs\nof COVID-19 patients obtained between December 2022 and April 2023, with Threshold Cycle values\n<30,000. The samples were stored at -80°C. The findings revealed that the average N (VIC) was 23.359, and\nRdRP (FAM) was 25.558 in the Magnetic Beads method, indicating a lower value compared to the average N\n(VIC) of 29.200 and RdRP (FAM) of 29.661 in the Spin Column method. This suggests that the Magnetic\nBeads method exhibited greater sensitivity than the Spin Column method. The statistical analysis confirmed\nthese differences, with a P value of 0.003 in N (VIC) and the P value of 0.000 in RdRP (FAM). Consequently,\nit can be concluded that there is a significant 19.5% difference in the Threshold Cycle during RNA extraction\nusing Magnetic Beads and Spin Column in the examination of the SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR method.\nKeywords: Sars-CoV-2; rRT-PCR; Magnetic Beads; Spin Column; Threshold Cycle.","PeriodicalId":505112,"journal":{"name":"Bionatura","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bionatura","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21931/rb/2024.09.01.64","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) belongs to the large family of SARS-CoV viruses, initially emerging in 2002-2003. In humans, this virus triggers respiratory infectious diseases. COVID-19, a new variant of SARS-CoV, was identified in humans following an unprecedented incident in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. This virus typically manifests mild symptoms, including a runny nose, sore throat, cough, and fever. The Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT), specifically the realtime Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) examination, is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for diagnosing COVID-19. This study assessed potential differences in Threshold Cycle results during RNA extraction using magnetic beads compared to spin columns in the SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR method. The population for this study was selected through accidental sampling from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs of COVID-19 patients obtained between December 2022 and April 2023, with Threshold Cycle values <30,000. The samples were stored at -80°C. The findings revealed that the average N (VIC) was 23.359, and RdRP (FAM) was 25.558 in the Magnetic Beads method, indicating a lower value compared to the average N (VIC) of 29.200 and RdRP (FAM) of 29.661 in the Spin Column method. This suggests that the Magnetic Beads method exhibited greater sensitivity than the Spin Column method. The statistical analysis confirmed these differences, with a P value of 0.003 in N (VIC) and the P value of 0.000 in RdRP (FAM). Consequently, it can be concluded that there is a significant 19.5% difference in the Threshold Cycle during RNA extraction using Magnetic Beads and Spin Column in the examination of the SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR method. Keywords: Sars-CoV-2; rRT-PCR; Magnetic Beads; Spin Column; Threshold Cycle.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用磁珠法和旋转柱法提取 SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR 中 RNA 的阈值循环结果比较分析
冠状病毒病-2019(COVID-19)属于 SARS-CoV 病毒大家族,最初出现于 2002-2003 年。在人类中,这种病毒会引发呼吸道传染病。COVID-19 是 SARS-CoV 的一个新变种,于 2019 年 12 月在中国武汉发生的一起史无前例的事件中在人类中被发现。世界卫生组织(WHO)推荐使用核酸扩增检验(NAAT),特别是实时反转录聚合酶链反应(rRT-PCR)检查来诊断 COVID-19。本研究评估了在 SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR 方法中使用磁珠提取 RNA 与使用旋柱提取 RNA 时阈值周期结果的潜在差异。本研究的样本选自 2022 年 12 月至 2023 年 4 月间意外采集的 COVID-19 患者的鼻咽和口咽拭子,阈值周期值<30,000。样本在-80°C下保存。研究结果显示,磁珠法的平均 N (VIC) 为 23.359,RdRP (FAM) 为 25.558,与旋转柱法的平均 N (VIC) 29.200 和 RdRP (FAM) 29.661 相比,数值较低。这表明磁珠法比自旋色谱柱法具有更高的灵敏度。统计分析证实了这些差异,N (VIC) 的 P 值为 0.003,RdRP (FAM) 的 P 值为 0.000。因此,可以得出结论:在 SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR 方法检测中,磁珠法和旋转柱法提取 RNA 的阈值周期存在 19.5%的显著差异:SARS-CoV-2;rRT-PCR;磁珠;旋光柱;阈值周期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Composición química y evaluación del sinergismo de la actividad antioxidante de mezclas de los aceites esenciales de Luma chequen (Arrayan) y Citrus maxima (Pomelo). HIV knowledge and preventive Standards Precautions Among Healthcare Workers in Blood Transfusion Centers Fighting moniliasis in Orellana with sensors and PWA for sustainable agriculture Niveles de Vitamina D en pacientes con y sin Enfermedad Renal Crónica, perfil clínico y epidemiológico: un análisis preeliminiar en un hospital de segundo nivel en quito, Ecuador. Detection of arsenic and lead ions in water through validation of the electrothermal atomic absorption method
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1