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
. 2021 Jul;100(3):115366.
doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115366. Epub 2021 Mar 4.

Caution in interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification based on RT-PCR cycle threshold value

Aurélie Schnuriger  1 , Marine Perrier  2 , Valérie Marinho  2 , Yanne Michel  2 , Kenda Saloum  2 , Narjis Boukli  2 , Sidonie Lambert-Niclot  3 , Corinne Amiel  2 , Djeneba Bocar Fofana  2 , Joël Gozlan  4 , Laurence Morand-Joubert  3
Affiliations

Caution in interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification based on RT-PCR cycle threshold value

Aurélie Schnuriger et al. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

RT-PCR is the reference method for diagnosis of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. During the setting up of 6 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays in our laboratory, comparative evaluations were systematically undertaken and allowed to evidence major discrepancies on cycle threshold RT-PCR results between techniques. These tendencies were confirmed in routine application when analyzing sequential samples from the same patients. Our aim was to examine the impact of the technique among factors influencing RT-PCR result, a far surrogate of 'viral load' in the heterogeneous environment of respiratory specimens.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig. 1
SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle thresholds differences (delta Ct) between techniques on the same sample during comparative evaluation of 6 assays. A- in-house RT-PCR based on gene E amplification (Corman et al., January 23, 2020), B- Bosphore® v2 nCoV assay (Anatolia geneworks), C- AllplexTM nCoV assay (Seegene), D- RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott), E- Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid) and F- SimplexaTM COVID-19 Direct (Diasorin molecular). Techniques E and F are unitary rapid one-step extraction/RT-PCR assays. Open circles: clinical samples, selected in March and April 2020 for varied initial Ct value; open triangles: quality controls, composed of Qnostics (Randox laboratories) and/or QCMD 2020 panel for external quality assessment. Error bars show medians and interquartile ranges (GraphPad Prism v9 software).
Fig 2
Fig. 2
Bland-Altman representations of comparisons of RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) obtained on the same sample by 2 comparative assays (GraphPad Prism v9 software). Technique A- in-house RT-PCR based on gene E amplification (Corman et al., January 23, 2020), B- Bosphore v2 nCoV assay (Anatolia geneworks), C- Allplex nCoV assay (Seegene), D- RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott), E- Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid), F- Simplexa COVID-19 Direct (Diasorin molecular). Similar or higher numbers of negative specimens were also tested for evaluation and found negative by both techniques (n = 43, data not shown). Solid lines indicate bias and horizontal dotted lines indicate 95% limits of agreement. Black dotted lines indicate simple linear regression.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3.
Temporal profiles of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) for six representative patients. Samples (nasopharyngeal swabs) were processed by 2 comparative assays: B- Bosphore v2 nCoV assay (Anatolia geneworks) or C- Allplex nCoV assay (Seegene), vs D- RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (Abbott) or F- Simplexa COVID-19 Direct (Diasorin molecular).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DKW, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-NCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(3) doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dust K, Hedley A, Nichol K, Stein D, Adam H, Karlowsky JA., et al. Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. J Virol Methods. 2020;285 doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113970. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Han MS, Byun JH, Cho Y, Rim JH. RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: quantitative versus qualitative. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30424-2. S1473309920304242. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kasteren PBV, Veer BVD, Brink SVD, Wijsman L, Jonge JD, Brandt AVD, et al. Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19. J Clin Virol. 2020;128 doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104412. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pan Y, Long L, Zhang D, Yuan T, Cui S, Yang P, et al. Potential false-negative nucleic acid testing results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from thermal inactivation of samples with low viral loads. Clin Chem. 2020;66(6):794–801. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa091. - DOI - PMC - PubMed