| Literature DB >> 35341301 |
Yuqing Chen1,2,3, Yanxi Han1,3, Jing Yang1,2,3, Yu Ma1,2,3, Jinming Li1,2,3, Rui Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
Emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with enhanced transmissibility, pathogenicity, and immune escape ability have ravaged many countries and regions, which has brought substantial challenges to pandemic prevention and control. Real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) is widely used for SARS-CoV-2 detection but may be limited by the continuous evolution of the virus. However, the sensitivity of Chinese commercial rRT-PCR kits to critical SARS-CoV-2 variants remains unknown. In this study, contrived MS2 virus-like particles were used as reference materials to evaluate the analytical sensitivity of Daan, BioGerm, EasyDiagnosis, Liferiver, and Sansure kits when detecting six important variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Omicron, and Fin-796H). The Beta and Delta variants adversely affected the analytical sensitivity of the BioGerm ORF1ab gene assay (9.52% versus 42.96%, P = 0.014, and 14.29% versus 42.96%, P = 0.040, respectively), whereas the N gene assay completely failed in terms of the Fin-796H variant. The Gamma and Fin-796H variants impeded the PCR amplification efficiency for the Sansure ORF1ab gene assay (33.33% versus 66.67%, P = 0.031, and 66.67% versus 95.24%, P = 0.040, respectively), and the Delta variant compromised the E gene assay (52.38% versus 85.71%, P = 0.019). The Alpha and Omicron variants had no significant effect on the kits. This study highlights the necessity of identifying the potential effect of viral mutations on the efficacy and sensitivity of clinical detection assays. It can also provide helpful insights regarding the development and optimization of diagnostic assays and aid the strategic management of the ongoing pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2 variants; analytical sensitivity; mutation; rRT-PCR
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35341301 PMCID: PMC9020341 DOI: 10.1128/jcm.02374-21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Microbiol ISSN: 0095-1137 Impact factor: 11.677
Information on the six variants in the study
| WHO label | Pango lineage | Virus name | Accession ID | Earliest documented samples | Date of designation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpha | B.1.1.7 | BetaCoV/England/QEUH-F56F0F/2021 | EPI_ISL_852526 | United Kingdom, Sep-2020 | 18-Dec-2020 |
| Beta | B.1.351 | BetaCoV/South_Africa/KRISP-K007869/2020 | EPI_ISL_860630 | South Africa, May-2020 | 18-Dec-2020 |
| Gamma | P.1 | BetaCoV/Brazil/AM-994/2020 | EPI_ISL_833174 | Brazil, Nov-2020 | 11-Jan-2021 |
| Delta | B.1.617.2 | BetaCoV/India/ILSGS00922/2021 | EPI_ISL_1663498 | India, Oct-2020 | 11-May-2021 |
| Omicron | B.1.1.529 | BetaCoV/South Africa/CERI-KRISP-K032233 | EPI_ISL_6699757 | Multiple countries, Nov-2021 | 26-Nov-2021 |
| Fin-796H | B.1.1.318 | BetaCoV/Finland/FinD796H/2021 | EPI_ISL_1061414 | Finland, Feb-2021 | / |
Unlike other variants, the “Fin-796H” label is not recommended by WHO.
The Delta variant was designated as VOI on April 4, 2021, and as VOC on May 11, 2021.
The Omicron variant was designated as VUM on November 24, 2021, and as VOC on November 26, 2021.
The Fin-796H variant is not a VOC designated by WHO.
Characteristics of five SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR detection kits
| Detection kit | Specimens | Target genes | Claimed LOD (copies/mL) | RNA input (μL) | Total reaction vol (μL) | Total PCR cycle no. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daan | NP, OP, sputum | ORF1ab, N | 500 | 5 | 25 | 45 |
| BioGerm | OP, sputum | ORF1ab, N | 500 | 5 | 25 | 45 |
| EasyDiagnosis | NP, OP, sputum | ORF1ab, N | 500 | 5 | 25 | 40 |
| Liferiver | NP, sputum | ORF1ab, N, E | 200 | 5 | 25 | 45 |
| Sansure | NP, OP, BALF | ORF1ab, N | 200 | 20 | 50 | 45 |
NP, nasal pharyngeal; OP, oral pharyngeal; BALF, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; ORF, open reading frame; N, nucleocapsid protein gene; E, envelope protein gene; LOD, the limit of detection.
Summary of results for positive rates (21 samples tested in total)
| Concentration (copies/mL) | Daan (retest rate, %) | BioGerm (retest rate, %) | EasyDiagnosis (retest rate, %) | Liferiver (retest rate, %) | Sansure (retest rate, %) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wuhan-Hu-1 | Alpha | Beta | Gamma | Delta | Omicron | Fin-796H | Wuhan-Hu-1 | Alpha | Beta | Gamma | Delta | Omicron | Fin-796H | Wuhan-Hu-1 | Alpha | Beta | Gamma | Delta | Omicron | Fin-796H | Wuhan-Hu-1 | Alpha | Beta | Gamma | Delta | Omicron | Fin-796H | Wuhan-Hu-1 | Alpha | Beta | Gamma | Delta | Omicron | Fin-796H | |
| 9000 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 3000 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 1000 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95.24 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 333.33 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 90.48 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 90.48 | 100 | 85.71 | 100 | 100 | 80.95 | 85.71 | 90.48 | 80.95 | 85.71 | 90.48 | 57.14 | 100 | 100 | 95.24 | 100 | 100 | 95.24 | 95.24 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95.24 | 100 | 100 |
| 111.11 | 47.62 | 76.19 | 52.38 | 38.10 | 61.90 | 80.95 | 80.95 | 61.90 | 85.71 | 66.67 | 80.95 | 71.43 | 76.19 | 76.19 | 23.81 | 42.86 | 23.81 | 42.86 | 4.76 | 14.29 | 9.52 | 57.14 | 80.95 | 95.24 | 76.19 | 47.62 | 33.33 | 42.86 | 100 | 100 | 95.24 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 37.04 | 23.81 | 23.81 | 9.52 | 19.05 | 19.05 | 14.29 | 33.33 | 42.86 | 38.10 | 14.29 | 28.57 | 19.05 | 9.52 | 14.29 | 19.05 | 23.81 | 23.81 | 9.52 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 | 47.62 | 47.62 | 42.86 | 57.14 | 28.57 | 4.76 | 19.05 | 100 | 100 | 95.24 | 42.86 | 76.19 | 66.67 | 100 |
| 12.35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.52 | 4.76 | 0 | 4.76 | 4.76 | 0 | 4.76 | 23.81 | 4.76 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 | 9.52 | 9.52 | 4.76 | 19.05 | 4.76 | 0 | 76.19 | 85.71 | 71.43 | 33.33 | 47.62 | 66.67 | 80.95 |
| 4.12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 | 19.05 | 9.52 | 14.29 | 9.52 | 4.76 | 23.81 |
FIG 1Results of probit regression analysis performed to calculate the LODs of five rRT-PCR detection kits for different strains. (A–E) Daan, BioGerm, EasyDiagnosis, Liferiver, and Sansure, respectively. LOD, the limit of detection.
FIG 2Estimated LODs of five rRT-PCR detection kits for different strains. (A–D) The overall LODs, LODs of ORF1ab gene, N gene, and E gene, respectively. LOD, the limit of detection.
FIG 3Sequencing results of rRT-PCR products of detection kits. The bases marked in red are mismatched compared to the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain.