ddPCR: a more accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens

被引:342
作者
Suo, Tao [1 ]
Liu, Xinjin [2 ]
Feng, Jiangpeng [2 ]
Guo, Ming [2 ]
Hu, Wenjia [3 ]
Guo, Dong [2 ]
Ullah, Hafiz [2 ]
Yang, Yang [2 ]
Zhang, Qiuhan [2 ]
Wang, Xin [2 ]
Sajid, Muhanmmad [2 ]
Huang, Zhixiang [2 ]
Deng, Liping [3 ]
Chen, Tielong [3 ]
Liu, Fang [2 ]
Xu, Ke [2 ]
Liu, Yuan [2 ]
Zhang, Qi [2 ]
Liu, Yingle [2 ]
Xiong, Yong [3 ]
Chen, Guozhong [1 ]
Lan, Ke [2 ,4 ]
Chen, Yu [2 ]
机构
[1] Wuhan Univ, Renmin Hosp, State Key Lab Virol, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[2] Wuhan Univ, Coll Life Sci, Modern Virol Res Ctr, State Key Lab Virol, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[3] Wuhan Univ, Zhongnan Hosp, Dept Infect Dis, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[4] Wuhan Univ, Frontier Sci Ctr Immunol & Metab, Wuhan, Peoples R China
关键词
SARS-CoV-2; droplet digital PCR; RT-PCR; clinical detection; false negative; DROPLET DIGITAL PCR; QUANTIFICATION; DNA;
D O I
10.1080/22221751.2020.1772678
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Quantitative real time PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load specimens and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 77 patients, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy based on the results of follow-up survey. 26 patients of COVID-19 with negative RT-PCR reports were reported as positive by ddPCR. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27-55%), 100% (95% CI: 54-100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13-19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48-0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33-60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83-99%), 100% (95% CI: 48-100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36-83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02-0.18), and 95% (95% CI: 84-99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 6/14 (42.9%) convalescents were detected as positive by ddPCR at 5-12 days post discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the RT-PCR.
引用
收藏
页码:1259 / 1268
页数:10
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Validation of Laboratory-Developed Molecular Assays for Infectious Diseases
    Burd, Eileen M.
    [J]. CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY REVIEWS, 2010, 23 (03) : 550 - +
  • [2] RNA based mNGS approach identifies a novel human coronavirus from two individual pneumonia cases in 2019 Wuhan outbreak
    Chen, Liangjun
    Liu, Weiyong
    Zhang, Qi
    Xu, Ke
    Ye, Guangming
    Wu, Weichen
    Sun, Ziyong
    Liu, Fang
    Wu, Kailang
    Zhong, Bo
    Mei, Yi
    Zhang, Wenxia
    Chen, Yu
    Li, Yirong
    Shi, Mang
    Lan, Ke
    Liu, Yingle
    [J]. EMERGING MICROBES & INFECTIONS, 2020, 9 (01) : 313 - 319
  • [3] General Office of the National Health and Health Commission O of the SA of TCM, 2020, DIAGN TREATM PNEUM N
  • [4] Guo Y, 2020, CHONGQING MED, V14, P1671
  • [5] High-Throughput Droplet Digital PCR System for Absolute Quantitation of DNA Copy Number
    Hindson, Benjamin J.
    Ness, Kevin D.
    Masquelier, Donald A.
    Belgrader, Phillip
    Heredia, Nicholas J.
    Makarewicz, Anthony J.
    Bright, Isaac J.
    Lucero, Michael Y.
    Hiddessen, Amy L.
    Legler, Tina C.
    Kitano, Tyler K.
    Hodel, Michael R.
    Petersen, Jonathan F.
    Wyatt, Paul W.
    Steenblock, Erin R.
    Shah, Pallavi H.
    Bousse, Luc J.
    Troup, Camille B.
    Mellen, Jeffrey C.
    Wittmann, Dean K.
    Erndt, Nicholas G.
    Cauley, Thomas H.
    Koehler, Ryan T.
    So, Austin P.
    Dube, Simant
    Rose, Klint A.
    Montesclaros, Luz
    Wang, Shenglong
    Stumbo, David P.
    Hodges, Shawn P.
    Romine, Steven
    Milanovich, Fred P.
    White, Helen E.
    Regan, John F.
    Karlin-Neumann, George A.
    Hindson, Christopher M.
    Saxonov, Serge
    Colston, Bill W.
    [J]. ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, 2011, 83 (22) : 8604 - 8610
  • [6] Absolute quantification by droplet digital PCR versus analog real-time PCR
    Hindson, Christopher M.
    Chevillet, John R.
    Briggs, Hilary A.
    Gallichotte, Emily N.
    Ruf, Ingrid K.
    Hindson, Benjamin J.
    Vessella, Robert L.
    Tewari, Muneesh
    [J]. NATURE METHODS, 2013, 10 (10) : 1003 - +
  • [7] Quantification using real-time PCR technology: applications and limitations
    Klein, D
    [J]. TRENDS IN MOLECULAR MEDICINE, 2002, 8 (06) : 257 - 260
  • [8] Kuypers J, 2017, J CLIN MICROBIOL, V55, P1621, DOI [10.1128/jcm.00211-17, 10.1128/JCM.00211-17]
  • [9] Li MZ, 2020, ACAD RADIOL, V27, P603, DOI 10.1016/j.acra.2020.03.003
  • [10] Miyaoka Y, 2018, METHODS MOL BIOL, V1768, P349, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7778-9_20