M. Colosimo, P. Minchella, Rossana Tallerico, Ilenia Talotta, C. Peronace, L. Gallelli, G. Di Mizio, E. Cione
{"title":"Allplex™2019-nCoV和TaqPath™COVID-19检测方法的比较","authors":"M. Colosimo, P. Minchella, Rossana Tallerico, Ilenia Talotta, C. Peronace, L. Gallelli, G. Di Mizio, E. Cione","doi":"10.3390/reports5020014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is non-specific, and to improve and limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an accurate diagnosis with a robust method is needed. A total of 500 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 184 samples were found to be positive with Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay, which is fully automated. All the positive samples were retested with TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (after this, referred to as TaqPath™ COVID-19), semi-automated. The comparison of RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 genes target points shows only one target point in common, the N gene. Therefore, the N gene was used to compare both assays. We noticed different Ct values between the tests. Therefore, samples were divided into four groups depending to the Ct value results: (1) Ct < 25, (2) Ct 25–30, (3) Ct 30–35, (4) Ct > 35. TaqPath™ COVID-19 Kit reconfirmed the results obtained from Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay. In conclusion, both the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay and TaqPath™ COVID-19 tests accurately confirm the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Even if TaqPath™ COVID-19 has a semi-automated workflow, it does not introduce bias in the diagnostic screening of SARS-CoV-2, and it supports the indirect identification of variants of concern to undergo sequencing.","PeriodicalId":74664,"journal":{"name":"Reports (MDPI)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Allplex™ 2019-nCoV and TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assays\",\"authors\":\"M. Colosimo, P. Minchella, Rossana Tallerico, Ilenia Talotta, C. Peronace, L. Gallelli, G. Di Mizio, E. Cione\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/reports5020014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is non-specific, and to improve and limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an accurate diagnosis with a robust method is needed. A total of 500 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 184 samples were found to be positive with Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay, which is fully automated. All the positive samples were retested with TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (after this, referred to as TaqPath™ COVID-19), semi-automated. The comparison of RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 genes target points shows only one target point in common, the N gene. Therefore, the N gene was used to compare both assays. We noticed different Ct values between the tests. Therefore, samples were divided into four groups depending to the Ct value results: (1) Ct < 25, (2) Ct 25–30, (3) Ct 30–35, (4) Ct > 35. TaqPath™ COVID-19 Kit reconfirmed the results obtained from Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay. In conclusion, both the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay and TaqPath™ COVID-19 tests accurately confirm the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Even if TaqPath™ COVID-19 has a semi-automated workflow, it does not introduce bias in the diagnostic screening of SARS-CoV-2, and it supports the indirect identification of variants of concern to undergo sequencing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports (MDPI)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports (MDPI)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/reports5020014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports (MDPI)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/reports5020014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Allplex™ 2019-nCoV and TaqPath™ COVID-19 Assays
The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is non-specific, and to improve and limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an accurate diagnosis with a robust method is needed. A total of 500 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 184 samples were found to be positive with Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay, which is fully automated. All the positive samples were retested with TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (after this, referred to as TaqPath™ COVID-19), semi-automated. The comparison of RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 genes target points shows only one target point in common, the N gene. Therefore, the N gene was used to compare both assays. We noticed different Ct values between the tests. Therefore, samples were divided into four groups depending to the Ct value results: (1) Ct < 25, (2) Ct 25–30, (3) Ct 30–35, (4) Ct > 35. TaqPath™ COVID-19 Kit reconfirmed the results obtained from Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay. In conclusion, both the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay and TaqPath™ COVID-19 tests accurately confirm the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Even if TaqPath™ COVID-19 has a semi-automated workflow, it does not introduce bias in the diagnostic screening of SARS-CoV-2, and it supports the indirect identification of variants of concern to undergo sequencing.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
