Comparison of Reverse Transcription (RT)-Quantitative PCR and RT-Droplet Digital PCR for Detection of Genomic and Subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA

  • Morón-López S
  • Riveira-Muñoz E
  • Urrea V
  • et al.
13Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges.Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morón-López, S., Riveira-Muñoz, E., Urrea, V., Gutiérrez-Chamorro, L., Ávila-Nieto, C., Noguera-Julian, M., … Martinez-Picado, J. (2023). Comparison of Reverse Transcription (RT)-Quantitative PCR and RT-Droplet Digital PCR for Detection of Genomic and Subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Microbiology Spectrum, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.04159-22

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free