Evaluation of the time, labor, and money required for manual and automated nucleic acid (RNA) isolation for the detection of SARS-COV-2 by QRT-PCR using the qiamp viral RNA mini kit and kingfisher flex

Abstract

We undertook this cross-sectional investigation to assess the time, manpower, and average run cost per sample using manual Qiamp Viral RNA micro kit (Qiagen) and automated kingfisher flex instrument extraction methods for SARS-Cov-2 identification.The study used 120 Viral Transport Media-collected nasopharyngeal/ oropharyngeal swabs.Magnetic bead-based RNA extraction was performed using the Thermo Fisher Scientific kingfisher flex instrument and manual Extraction was Silica membrane-based Qiagen spin column kits. The TaqPath™ COVID-19 Combo Kit from Thermo Fisher Scientific was used for detecting SARS-CoV-2 target genes.Human technique took 40 minutes longer than automation. It cost more to automate than to manually labor. These disparities in time, effort, and cost affect laboratory operations, offering pros and cons for each method. This suggests that positive or negative was consistent regardless of viral load or RNA concentration.The study found that automated RNA extraction yielded better results compared to manual extraction. The automated sample processing system saved time, people, and money. In resource-limited or low-throughput labs, manual extraction may be preferable. Manual methods are laborious, require more hands-on time, and risk cross-contamination and technical blunders.