Dry Swab-Based Nucleic Acid Extraction vs. Spin Column-Based Nucleic Acid Extraction for COVID-19 RT-PCR Testing: A Comparative Study.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Mohammed Faraaz Khan, C Roopa
{"title":"Dry Swab-Based Nucleic Acid Extraction vs. Spin Column-Based Nucleic Acid Extraction for COVID-19 RT-PCR Testing: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Mohammed Faraaz Khan,&nbsp;C Roopa","doi":"10.1155/2023/6624932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conventional nucleic acid extraction involves usage of spin columns to isolate the RNA, but this is labor intensive. This study compares the spin column method with a dry swab-based method of extraction using a proteinase K buffer and subsequent heat inactivation. A total of 56 subjects were tested for COVID-19 by RT-PCR with probes targeting the E and RdRp genes by collecting two nasopharyngeal and two oropharyngeal swabs and subjecting one set to nucleic acid extraction by spin column and the other set to dry swab-based methods. Out of the 56 samples tested, 27 were positive for VTM-based extraction and 29 were negative. Dry swab-based extraction produced 22 positive results (sensitivity = 81.48%) and 34 negative results. The E gene was detectable in 25 samples by the dry swab method out of 27 samples that tested positive by the VTM-based method (sensitivity = 92.5%). The RdRp gene was detectable in 22 samples by the dry swab method out of 27 samples that tested positive by the VTM-based method (sensitivity = 81.48%). Concordance was 91% with discordance at 9% and a Kappa value of 0.82, indicating almost perfect agreement between the two methods. Our findings indicate that the dry swab method of nucleic acid extraction is a useful alternative to conventional spin column-based extraction with comparable sensitivity and specificity. The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) with a CTRI registration number of CTRI/2021/12/038792.</p>","PeriodicalId":50715,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10469701/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6624932","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conventional nucleic acid extraction involves usage of spin columns to isolate the RNA, but this is labor intensive. This study compares the spin column method with a dry swab-based method of extraction using a proteinase K buffer and subsequent heat inactivation. A total of 56 subjects were tested for COVID-19 by RT-PCR with probes targeting the E and RdRp genes by collecting two nasopharyngeal and two oropharyngeal swabs and subjecting one set to nucleic acid extraction by spin column and the other set to dry swab-based methods. Out of the 56 samples tested, 27 were positive for VTM-based extraction and 29 were negative. Dry swab-based extraction produced 22 positive results (sensitivity = 81.48%) and 34 negative results. The E gene was detectable in 25 samples by the dry swab method out of 27 samples that tested positive by the VTM-based method (sensitivity = 92.5%). The RdRp gene was detectable in 22 samples by the dry swab method out of 27 samples that tested positive by the VTM-based method (sensitivity = 81.48%). Concordance was 91% with discordance at 9% and a Kappa value of 0.82, indicating almost perfect agreement between the two methods. Our findings indicate that the dry swab method of nucleic acid extraction is a useful alternative to conventional spin column-based extraction with comparable sensitivity and specificity. The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) with a CTRI registration number of CTRI/2021/12/038792.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

干拭子核酸提取与自旋柱核酸提取用于COVID-19 RT-PCR检测的比较研究
传统的核酸提取包括使用自旋柱分离RNA,但这是劳动密集型的。本研究比较了旋转柱法和基于干拭子的提取方法,使用蛋白酶K缓冲液和随后的热失活。采用RT-PCR方法检测56例受试者,采集2份鼻咽拭子和2份口咽拭子,分别采用自旋柱核酸提取法和干拭子核酸提取法,检测E和RdRp基因。在56个检测样本中,27个基于vtm的提取呈阳性,29个呈阴性。干拭子提取阳性22例(敏感性81.48%),阴性34例。在基于vtm的方法检测为阳性的27份样本中,25份样本通过干拭子法检测到E基因(灵敏度= 92.5%)。在基于vtm的方法检测为阳性的27份样本中,干拭子法检测到22份RdRp基因(灵敏度为81.48%)。一致性为91%,不一致性为9%,Kappa值为0.82,表明两种方法几乎完全一致。我们的研究结果表明,干拭子核酸提取方法是一种有用的替代传统的基于自旋柱的提取方法,具有相当的灵敏度和特异性。该试验已在印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI)注册,注册号为CTRI/2021/12/038792。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to infectious diseases of bacterial, viral and parasitic origin. The journal welcomes articles describing research on pathogenesis, epidemiology of infection, diagnosis and treatment, antibiotics and resistance, and immunology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信