Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Nov:285:113970.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113970. Epub 2020 Sep 10.

Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Kerry Dust et al. J Virol Methods. 2020 Nov.

Abstract

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Performance characteristics for each test were determined by testing clinical specimens and reference material. All assays detect the pan-Sarbecovirus E (envelope structural protein) gene plus a SARS-CoV-2-specific target. The limit of detection for the E gene target varied from ∼2 copies/reaction to >30 copies/reaction. Due to assay-specific differences in sample processing and nucleic acid extraction, the overall analytical sensitivity ranged from 24 copies/mL specimen to 574 copies/mL specimen. Despite these differences, there was 100 % agreement between the commercial and laboratory developed tests. No false-negative or false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were observed and there was no cross-reactivity with common respiratory viruses, including endemic coronaviruses.

Keywords: COVID-19; Clinical virology; Molecular diagnostics; SARS-CoV-2.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

References

    1. Bose M.E., McCaul K.C., Mei H. Simulated respiratory secretion for use in the development of influenza diagnostic assays. PLoS One. 2016;11 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166800. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cepheid Xpert® Xpress-SARS-CoV-2 EUA package insert (GeneXpert system). Document 302-3562. Rev C. 2020
    1. Corman V.M., Landt O., Kaiser M. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. EuroSurveillence. 2020;25(3) doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Loeffelholz M.J., Alland D., Butler-Wu S.M. Multicenter evaluation of the cepheid xpert xpress SARS-CoV-2 test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2020 doi: 10.1128/JCM.00926-20. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lowe C.F., Matic N., Ritchie G. Detection of low levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from nasopharyngeal swabs using three commercial molecular assays. J. Clin. Virol. 2020;128 doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104387. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms