| Literature DB >> 35885505 |
Sayamon Hongjaisee1, Yosita Jabjainai2, Suthasinee Sakset3, Kanya Preechasuth3, Nicole Ngo-Giang-Huong4,5, Woottichai Khamduang3,5.
Abstract
Nucleic acid extraction from biological samples is an important step for hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnosis. However, such extractions are mostly based on silica-based column methodologies, which may limit their application for on-site diagnosis. A simple, rapid, and field-deployable method for RNA extraction is still needed. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of four simple RNA extraction methods for the detection of HCV in plasma samples: a silica-membrane-based method, a magnetic-beads-based method, boiling with diethyl pyrocarbonate (DEPC)-treated distilled water, and using a commercial lysis buffer. HCV RNA was detected using both real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Using real-time RT-PCR, extracted RNA from the silica-membrane-based and magnetic-beads-based methods had a 100% detection rate for RNA extraction from plasma. Using RT-LAMP, extracted RNA from the silica-membrane-based method showed a 66% detection rate, while the magnetic-beads-based method had a 62% detection rate. In summary, magnetic-beads-based extraction can be used as an alternative RNA extraction method for on-site HCV detection. Boiling with DEPC-treated distilled water was not appropriate for low HCV load samples, and boiling with a lysis buffer was not recommended.Entities:
Keywords: HCV; RNA extraction; RT-LAMP; RT-PCR; molecular diagnosis; plasma
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885505 PMCID: PMC9322174 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Efficacy of four different extraction methods for molecular diagnosis of HCV in plasma.
| Plasma HCV RNA Level (IU/mL) | Extraction Methods | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silica-Membrane Based | Magnetic Beads-Based | Boiling with DEPC-Treated Distilled Water | Boiling with a Commercial Lysis Buffer | ||
|
| Concentration (ng/µL) | 345.80 ± 11.44 | 6.87 ± 4.03 | 125.63 ± 16.91 | 695.37 ± 13.62 |
| Purity (260/280) | 3.45 ± 0.04 | 1.57 ± 0.12 | 0.87 ± 0.02 | 1.01 ± 0.04 | |
| Real time RT-PCR, | 24.91 ± 0.29 | 24.11 ± 1.17 | 29.86 ± 0.77 | Undetectable | |
| RT-LAMP, no. of detectable samples (%) | 3/3 (100) | 3/3 (100) | 2/3 (67) | Uninterpreted | |
|
| Concentration (ng/µL) | 347.73 ± 9.20 | 1.97 ± 0.83 | 28.30 ± 34.75 | 636.37 ± 1.19 |
| Purity (260/280) | 3.44 ± 0.01 | 1.78 ± 0.90 | 0.99 ± 0.28 | 1.07 ± 0.04 | |
| Real time RT-PCR, | 28.27 ± 1.25 | 27.42 ± 0.78 | 32.48 ± 0.98 | Undetectable | |
| RT-LAMP, no. of detectable samples (%) | 1/3 (33) | 1/3 (33) | 0/3 (0) | Uninterpreted | |
|
| Concentration (ng/µL) | 326.90 ± 47.56 | 2.80 ± 0.87 | 0.20 ± 0.14 | 620.47 ± 10.98 |
| Purity (260/280) | 3.43 ± 0.04 | 1.97 ± 0.45 | 1.85 ± 2.06 | 1.08 ± 0.01 | |
| Real time RT-PCR, | 32.84 ± 0.42 | 32.80 ± 1.18 | 34.87 ± 1.01 | Undetectable | |
| RT-LAMP, no. of detectable samples (%) | 0/3 (0) | 0/3 (0) | 0/3 (0) | Uninterpreted | |
|
| Concentration (ng/µL) | 318.33 ± 26.13 | 2.57 ± 0.72 | 0 ± 0.10 | 551.37 ± 126.27 |
| Purity (260/280) | 3.46 ± 0.01 | 2.48 ± 0.73 | 0.14 ± 0.90 | 1.10 ± 0.01 | |
| Real time RT-PCR, | Undetectable | Undetectable | Undetectable | Undetectable | |
| RT-LAMP, no. of detectable samples (%) | 0/3 (0) | 0/3 (0) | 0/3 (0) | Uninterpreted | |
aCt: Cycle threshold.
Clinical efficacy evaluation of the viral RNA extraction methods for HCV detection using real time RT-PCR and RT-LAMP.
| HCV Viral Load | Extraction Methods | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silica-Membrane Based | Magnetic Beads-Based | Boiling with DEPC-Treated Distilled Water | ||||
| Real Time RT-PCR, | RT-LAMP, No. of Detectable Samples (%) | Real Time RT-PCR, | RT-LAMP, No. of Detectable Samples (%) | Real Time RT-PCR, | RT-LAMP, No. of Detectable Samples (%) | |
| 6.01–7.00 ( | 24.95 ± 1.64 | 10/10 (100) | 23.19 ± 1.35 | 10/10 (100) | 29.50 ± 1.27 | 3/10 (30) |
| 5.01–6.00 ( | 26.76 ± 1.13 | 13/14 (93) | 24.59 ± 0.90 | 12/14 (86) | 30.86 ± 0.93 | 4/14 (29) |
| 4.01–5.00 ( | 29.89 ± 1.37 | 9/14 (64) | 27.89 ± 1.03 | 9/14 (64) | 33.83 ± 1.07 | 0/14 (0) |
| 3.01–4.00 ( | 32.60 ± 1.44 | 1/12 (8) | 31.21 ± 1.23 | 0/12 (0) | 34.11 ± 0.72 | 0/12 (0) |
| Total ( | 50 (100) | 33 (66) | 50 (100) | 31 (62) | 38 (76) | 7 (14) |
Figure 1Correlation analysis between cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained by real-time RT-PCR using extracted RNA (n = 50) from silica-membrane-based and magnetic-beads-based extraction methods (A) and boiling using DEPC-treated distilled water extraction methods (B).