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
. 2025 May 28;17(6):772.
doi: 10.3390/v17060772.

Droplet Digital PCR or Real-Time PCR as a Method for Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Plasma-Is There a Difference?

Beathe Kiland Granerud  1   2   3 , Mari Kaarbø  2 , Huda Al-Baldawi  1 , The Norwegian Sars-CoV-Study Group Investigators, Kari Otterdal  4 , Bente Halvorsen  1   4 , Andreas Lind  2 , Simon Rayner  1 , Jan Cato Holter  1   2 , Susanne Dudman  1   2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Droplet Digital PCR or Real-Time PCR as a Method for Quantifying SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Plasma-Is There a Difference?

Beathe Kiland Granerud et al. Viruses. .

Abstract

The aim of this study is to ascertain whether qRT-PCR (reverse transcriptase real-time PCR) or RT-ddPCR (reverse transcriptase digital droplet PCR) is more effective for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA) in blood plasma from COVID-19 (coronavirus infectious disease-19) patients. The E-gene of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was quantified using both methods in 128 plasma samples from 70 hospitalized patients, followed by a statistical analysis to compare the sensitivity and concordance between the methods. Out of the 128 samples, 89 yielded consistent results irrespective of the method used, whereas 39 samples showed discrepancies between the two different methods. RT-ddPCR frequently registered higher viral quantities compared to qRT-PCR; however, the results did not demonstrate a clear superiority in sensitivity for RT-ddPCR. Although RT-ddPCR registered higher viral quantities, this study concludes that both methods provide comparable results for detecting SARS-CoV-2 E-gene RNA in plasma.

Keywords: COVID-19; E-gene; RNAemia; RT-ddPCR; SARS-CoV-2; plasma; qRT-PCR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart from top to bottom, describing sample selection criteria.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Standard curves for SARS-CoV-2 E-gene qRT-PCR and RT-ddPCR, generated through simple linear regression, where each dot represents one replicate. The standards are the same in both panels, as is their expected concentration in log10 copies/mL. The left panel displays how the standard’s expected concentration correlates with Cq values when analyzed using qRT-PCR. The right panel displays how the standard’s expected concentration correlates with observed concentration when analyzed with RT-ddPCR.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) XY scatterplot of all samples determined to be positive using both methods (n = 29), with the sample number on the x-axis and the concentration (log 10 copies/mL) on the y-axis. Each pair of results (RT-ddPCR result versus qRT-PCR result for one sample) is represented by the same color. (b) Box and whisker plot showing the mean and 5–95% percentile of positive results based on RT-ddPCR versus qRT-PCR.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Box and whisker plot showing mean and 5–95% percentile of disconcordant samples; qRT-PCR-positive (q pos) versus RT-ddPCR-negative (dd neg) and qRT-PCR-negative (q neg) versus RT-ddPCR-positive (dd pos), n = 39.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gupta A., Madhavan M.V., Sehgal K., Nair N., Mahajan S., Sehrawat T.S., Bikdeli B., Ahluwalia N., Ausiello J.C., Wan E.Y., et al. Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Nat. Med. 2020;26:1017–1032. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0968-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann M., Kleine-Weber H., Schroeder S., Krüger N., Herrler T., Erichsen S., Schiergens T.S., Herrler G., Wu N.-H., Nitsche A., et al. SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor. Cell. 2020;181:271–280.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.052. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang X., Liu Y., Wang J., Long T., Yee Mok B.W., Huang Y., Peng Z., Jia Q., Liu C., So P.-K., et al. Identifications of novel host cell factors that interact with the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. J. Biol. Chem. 2024;300:107390. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107390. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Puray-Chavez M., LaPak K.M., Schrank T.P., Elliott J.L., Bhatt D.P., Agajanian M.J., Jasuja R., Lawson D.Q., Keanu Davis K., Rothlauf P.W., et al. Systematic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection of an ACE2-negative human airway cell. Cell Rep. 2021;36:109364. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109364. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arora P., Zhang L., Nehlmeier I., Kempf A., Graichen L., Kreitz E., Sidarovich A., Rocha C., Gärtner S., Winkler M., et al. Host cell lectins ASGR1 and DC-SIGN jointly with TMEM106B confer ACE2 independence and imdevimab resistance to SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus with spike mutation E484D. J. Virol. 2025;99:e01230-24. doi: 10.1128/jvi.01230-24. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources