Comparison of RT-PCR cycle threshold values between individual and pooled SARS-CoV-2 infected nasopharyngeal swab specimens.

Narra J Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-19 DOI:10.52225/narra.v4i2.765
Handa Yani, Toh D Yuan, Aridamuriany D Lubis, Lia K Iswara, Inke Nd Lubis
{"title":"Comparison of RT-PCR cycle threshold values between individual and pooled SARS-CoV-2 infected nasopharyngeal swab specimens.","authors":"Handa Yani, Toh D Yuan, Aridamuriany D Lubis, Lia K Iswara, Inke Nd Lubis","doi":"10.52225/narra.v4i2.765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The molecular reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of respiratory tract swabs has become mandatory to confirm the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, RT-PCR tests are expensive, require standardized equipment, and relatively long testing times, and the sample pooling method has been introduced to solve this issue. The aim of this study was to compare the cycle threshold (Ct) values of the individual sample and pooled sample methods to assess how accurate the pooling method was. Repeat RT-PCR examinations were initially performed to confirm the Ct values for each sample before running the pooled test procedure. Sample extraction and amplification were performed in both assays to detect ORF1ab, N, and E genes with a cut-off point value of Ct <38. Overall, there was no difference in Ct values between individual sample and pooled sample groups at all concentrations (<i>p</i>=0.259) and for all pooled sizes. Only pooled size of five could detect the Ct value in the pooled samples for all concentration samples, including low-concentration sample (Ct values 36 to 38). This study highlighted that pooled RT-PCR testing strategy did not reduce the quality of individually measured RT-PCR Ct values. A pool size of five could provide a practical technique to expand the screening capacity of RT-PCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":517416,"journal":{"name":"Narra J","volume":"4 2","pages":"e765"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11391988/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Narra J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i2.765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The molecular reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of respiratory tract swabs has become mandatory to confirm the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, RT-PCR tests are expensive, require standardized equipment, and relatively long testing times, and the sample pooling method has been introduced to solve this issue. The aim of this study was to compare the cycle threshold (Ct) values of the individual sample and pooled sample methods to assess how accurate the pooling method was. Repeat RT-PCR examinations were initially performed to confirm the Ct values for each sample before running the pooled test procedure. Sample extraction and amplification were performed in both assays to detect ORF1ab, N, and E genes with a cut-off point value of Ct <38. Overall, there was no difference in Ct values between individual sample and pooled sample groups at all concentrations (p=0.259) and for all pooled sizes. Only pooled size of five could detect the Ct value in the pooled samples for all concentration samples, including low-concentration sample (Ct values 36 to 38). This study highlighted that pooled RT-PCR testing strategy did not reduce the quality of individually measured RT-PCR Ct values. A pool size of five could provide a practical technique to expand the screening capacity of RT-PCR.

受 SARS-CoV-2 感染的鼻咽拭子标本个体与集合标本的 RT-PCR 周期阈值比较。
对呼吸道拭子进行分子反转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)检测已成为确诊2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的必经之路。然而,RT-PCR 检测价格昂贵,需要标准化设备,检测时间相对较长,为了解决这一问题,人们引入了样本池方法。本研究的目的是比较单个样本和样本池方法的周期阈值(Ct),以评估样本池方法的准确性。在运行集合测试程序之前,首先进行重复 RT-PCR 检验,以确认每个样本的 Ct 值。在两种检测方法中都进行了样本提取和扩增,以检测 ORF1ab、N 和 E 基因(Ct 临界值 p=0.259)和所有集合样本量。在所有浓度样本(包括低浓度样本(Ct 值为 36 至 38))中,只有 5 个集合样本能检测到集合样本中的 Ct 值。这项研究强调,集合 RT-PCR 检测策略不会降低单独检测的 RT-PCR Ct 值的质量。5 个样本的集合规模可为扩大 RT-PCR 的筛选能力提供一种实用技术。
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
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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