medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Patología Clínica y Medicina de Laboratorio

ISSN 0185-6014 (Print)
Órgano oficial de difusión de la Federación Mexicana de Patología Clínica, AC y de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Patología Clínica/Medicina de Laboratorio
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2021, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Patol Clin Med Lab 2021; 68 (2)

Advantages and disadvantages of 5 detection kits of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. Experience of the Hospital de Niños ''Dr. Roberto del Río'' clinical laboratory

Ovalle R, Morales P, Clement P, Rojas-Aedo JF
Full text How to cite this article 10.35366/103341

DOI

DOI: 10.35366/103341
URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.35366/103341

Language: Spanish
References: 7
Page: 59-61
PDF size: 192.90 Kb.


Key words:

PCR, qPCR, performance kits RT-PCR, SARS-CoV-2.

ABSTRACT

During 2020, the clinical laboratory of "Dr. Roberto del Río" Children's Hospital carried out detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 for clinical diagnosis during pandemics, with five different detection kits that showed differences in sensitivity, workflow, interpretation of results and presence of false positives. After using each kit for at least 45 days, the LightCycler Multiplex RNA Virus Master kit with LightMix modular SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) RdRp and Modular Dx kit EAV Extraction Control (Roche) was found to be the most convenient kits to use, presenting the best general performance (running time, workflow, and inhibition). In contrast, the less convenient kit was Allplex 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene), due to a high inhibition rate and long running time.


REFERENCES

  1. World Health Organization. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Situation Report - 11. WHO; 2020.

  2. Liotti FM, Menchinelli G, Marchetti S, Morandotti GA, Sanguinetti M, Posteraro B et al. Evaluation of three commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection in upper respiratory tract samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021; 40 (2): 269-277.

  3. Yip CCY, Sridhar S, Cheng AKW, Leung KH, Choi GKY, Chen JHK et al. Evaluation of the commercially available LightMix® Modular E-gene kit using clinical and proficiency testing specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection. J Clin Virol. 2020; 129: 104476.

  4. Thermo Fisher Scientific. Research Solutions for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Thermo Fisher Scientific. Available in: https://www.thermofisher.com/search/results?query=Research%20Solutions%20for%20SARS-CoV-2%20(COVID-19)&focusarea=Search%20All

  5. BGI. Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR Kit for Detecting SARS-CoV-2. US. BGI. 2021. Available in: https://www.bgi.com/us/sars-cov-2-real-time-fluorescent-rt-pcr-kit-ivd/

  6. Iglói Z, Leven M, Abou-Nouar ZAK, Weller B, Matheeussen V, Coppens J et al. Comparison of commercial realtime reverse transcription PCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Clin Virol. 2020; 129: 104510.

  7. Farfour E, Lesprit P, Visseaux B, Pascreau T, Jolly E, Houhou N et al. The Allplex 2019-nCoV (Seegene) assay: which performances are for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis? Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020; 39: 1997-2000.




Table 1
Table 2

2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Patol Clin Med Lab. 2021;68