RT-qPCR合并法在不同周期阈值下检测新冠肺炎的可靠性

Muhammad Fauzan Alif Radjawali, M. Jihadah, L. Chaidir
{"title":"RT-qPCR合并法在不同周期阈值下检测新冠肺炎的可靠性","authors":"Muhammad Fauzan Alif Radjawali, M. Jihadah, L. Chaidir","doi":"10.15850/amj.v10n2.2940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Reverse Transcriptase Quantitative Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) is a standard method to detect SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19 disease, albeit expensive for some laboratory settings. The pooling test is widely used for large-scale screening to speed up the turn-around time and reduce the cost of the RT-qPCR. However, the pooling test involves mixing a certain number of specimens which theoretically increases the possibility of false-negative results. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the pooling test compared with the non-pooling test in different Ct values as a surrogate for viral load.Methods: RT-qPCR was performed in three groups of samples: non-pooling (individual samples), pooling of 5 samples and 11 samples, with various ranges of Ct value in the respective group: x<25 (n=4); 25<x<30 (n=5), x<30 (n=16), and negative sample (n=5). Agreement and kappa values were calculated. Four of twenty-five individual samples resulted in false-negative after pooling.Results: By taking all samples without applying the cut-off value to the calculation, the agreement in pooling of 5 samples was 0.86 (Kappa 0.31) and of 11 samples was 0.64 (Kappa 0.96). When the cut-off value of Ct<37 was applied, percent agreement and kappa were 1.00, respectively, for both pooling methods.Conclusions: Pooling up to 11 samples shows high concordance with RT-qPCR with individual samples with Ct<37. Interpreting pooling results in a very low viral load (Ct≥37) must be considered due to the increased possibility of inconclusive results.","PeriodicalId":31310,"journal":{"name":"Althea Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of RT-qPCR Pooling Method for COVID-19 Detection in Various Cycle Threshold Values\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Fauzan Alif Radjawali, M. Jihadah, L. Chaidir\",\"doi\":\"10.15850/amj.v10n2.2940\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Reverse Transcriptase Quantitative Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) is a standard method to detect SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19 disease, albeit expensive for some laboratory settings. The pooling test is widely used for large-scale screening to speed up the turn-around time and reduce the cost of the RT-qPCR. However, the pooling test involves mixing a certain number of specimens which theoretically increases the possibility of false-negative results. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the pooling test compared with the non-pooling test in different Ct values as a surrogate for viral load.Methods: RT-qPCR was performed in three groups of samples: non-pooling (individual samples), pooling of 5 samples and 11 samples, with various ranges of Ct value in the respective group: x<25 (n=4); 25<x<30 (n=5), x<30 (n=16), and negative sample (n=5). Agreement and kappa values were calculated. Four of twenty-five individual samples resulted in false-negative after pooling.Results: By taking all samples without applying the cut-off value to the calculation, the agreement in pooling of 5 samples was 0.86 (Kappa 0.31) and of 11 samples was 0.64 (Kappa 0.96). When the cut-off value of Ct<37 was applied, percent agreement and kappa were 1.00, respectively, for both pooling methods.Conclusions: Pooling up to 11 samples shows high concordance with RT-qPCR with individual samples with Ct<37. Interpreting pooling results in a very low viral load (Ct≥37) must be considered due to the increased possibility of inconclusive results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Althea Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Althea Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15850/amj.v10n2.2940\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Althea Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15850/amj.v10n2.2940","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:逆转录酶定量实时聚合酶链反应(RT-qPCR)是检测导致新冠肺炎疾病的SARS-CoV-2的标准方法,尽管在某些实验室环境中成本高昂。池化检测被广泛用于大规模筛查,以加快周转时间并降低RT-qPCR的成本。然而,汇集测试涉及混合一定数量的样本,这在理论上增加了假阴性结果的可能性。本研究旨在评估在不同Ct值下,作为病毒载量替代品的合并试验与非合并试验的准确性。方法:对三组样本进行RT-qPCR:非汇集(单个样本)、汇集5个样本和11个样本,各组的Ct值范围不同:x<25(n=4);25本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reliability of RT-qPCR Pooling Method for COVID-19 Detection in Various Cycle Threshold Values
Background: Reverse Transcriptase Quantitative Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) is a standard method to detect SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19 disease, albeit expensive for some laboratory settings. The pooling test is widely used for large-scale screening to speed up the turn-around time and reduce the cost of the RT-qPCR. However, the pooling test involves mixing a certain number of specimens which theoretically increases the possibility of false-negative results. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the pooling test compared with the non-pooling test in different Ct values as a surrogate for viral load.Methods: RT-qPCR was performed in three groups of samples: non-pooling (individual samples), pooling of 5 samples and 11 samples, with various ranges of Ct value in the respective group: x<25 (n=4); 25
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prognostic Nutritional Index and Systemic Immune-inflammation Index: Possible New Parameters for COVID-19 Severity Pregnant Human Myometrial 1-41 Cell Viability Test on Vitamin D Administration Presence of Multidrug Resistance (MDR) Escherichia coli in the Citarum River located in Greater Bandung Area, Indonesia Penile Length of Prepubertal Children in Surabaya Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior in E-Cigar Users Community in Indonesia
×
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