Background
The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which emerged in Wuhan, province of Hubei, China in December, 2019, affecting more than 190 countries all over the world [
1,
2]. Until February 15th, 2022, more than 413.7 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in 191 countries and approximately more than 5.8 million deaths from this disease [
3]. Peru is experiencing one of the largest COVID-19 epidemics in Latin America, reporting 3.36 million of confirmed cases and 206 thousand deaths until February 15th, 2022 [
4]. Due to the increasing cases of COVID-19, Peruvian government has launched an epidemiological alert to intensify early detection of cases [
5].
In most countries, one of the main preventive measures include the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 cases, thus World Health Organization recommend reverse transcription-PCR real-time (RT-qPCR) as standard test [
6‐
8]. Recently, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized over 30 in vitro diagnostic methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), providing various qPCR alternatives including quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), reverse transcription–loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and direct rapid RNA extraction-free RT-qPCR [
9]. However, most molecular methods present some limitations, including the need of expensive equipment, long periods of processing time, trained laboratory-personal and specialized laboratory infrastructure. Likewise, the access to molecular testing in low-resource communities in Peru is very scarce. For this reason, the developing of faster and precise diagnosis molecular methods applied on in low-resource settings are necessary to improve early detection and control of COVID-19 [
10].
To address these limitations, rapid molecular methods as viral RNA detection kit for SARS-CoV-2 (SMARTCHEK, Genesystem) are available, based on a biochip sample format on the amplification of
RdRp and
N gene markers which gives around 45-min response time with a simple workflow, offering all the benefits of a RT-qPCR at the same time [
11]. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the platform for quick detection of SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-qPCR from clinical samples.
Methods
Clinical samples collection
A total of 360 nasopharyngeal swab samples were received by the Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS) for molecular diagnosis by RT-qPCR under the SARS-CoV-2 surveillance system in Peru.
The viral RNA of clinical samples was extracted and purified using QIAamp Viral RNA Mini kit (Qiagen, Germany), following the manufacturer recommendations. RNA quantification and quality assessment were evaluated by spectrophotometry using DS-11 FX (DeNovix, USA) and fluorometry using Qubit 3.0 (Invitrogen, USA).
Conventional RT-qPCR
The conventional reverse transcription-qPCR (RT-qPCR) was performed using the primers and probes described by Corman et al. [
7] which are recommended for SARS-CoV-2 detection by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). RT-qPCR amplification of the SARS-CoV-2 which includes
E (0.4 μM) and
RdRp (0.8 μM) as protein gene targets were performed using one step RT-qPCR kit Superscript III with Platinum Taq Polymerase (Invitrogen, Germany). The assay uses a human reference gene as amplification control. Cycling conditions were as follows: 15 min at 50 °C, 2 min at 95 °C, and 45 cycles, with 1 cycle consisting of 15 s at 95 °C and 30 s at 58 °C. Rotor Gene Q Qiagen thermocycler was employed for the amplification. To interpret the results, SARS-CoV-2 positive samples was considered when there was an amplification in at least one of two markers with Ct value < 40, and considered negative with Ct values ≥ 40. In case of internal control (
GAPDH), positive reaction was considered with Ct value < 40 and negative reaction with Ct values ≥ 40. In all reactions, the internal control must be positive before the final interpretation.
RT- PCR SMARTCHEK
The samples were analyzed with RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK (Genesystem, South Korea) detection kit for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) following the manufacturer recommendations. The kit is based on a biochip sample format, where primers and probes employed for the detection of
RdRp and
N genes specific to SARS-CoV-2 are dehydrated on the chip wells. For each Biochip, 04 patient samples can be detected simultaneously (well 2–9) and an internal control is evaluated in each well. Well number 1 corresponds to the not template control (contains pre-labeled primers and probes) and well number 10 is assigned to the positive control (contains pre-labeled primers and probes along with positive templates) (Additional file
1: Fig S1).
For the preparation of the sample reaction for RT-qPCR, a mix of 10 μL of Premix and 10 μL of viral RNA was used. The mix was inoculated in duplicate on the chip; each single assay allows detecting N and RdRp genes, respectively. Each Biochip can detect 4 patient samples simultaneously for two markers, including internal and negative control.
The RT-qPCR assay was performed in the Genechecker UF-300 (Genesytem, South Korea) platform, using temperature condition including 10 min at 50 °C, 30 s at 95 °C, and 40 cycles, with 1 cycle consisting of 5 s at 95 °C, 20 s at 58 °C and 5 s at 72 °C. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus was detected by the identification of an amplification curve with Ct ≤ 37 value for RdRp gene, N gene and the amplification of internal control. In all reactions, the internal control must be positive to allow for results to be interpreted.
Analytical sensitivity of the RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK
The limit of detection (LOD) of RT-qPCR and RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK were compared. LoD was calculated using the positive control 2019-nCoV_RdRp (ORF1ab) (Integrated DNA Technologies), which contains the envelope gene and a portion of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and the positive control 2019-nCoV_E (Integrated DNA Technologies), both controls have been synthesized at a concentration of 200,000 copies/μL. Predetermined copy numbers of biochemically synthesized RNA were serially diluted ten-fold from 106 copies to 10–1 copies of the target gene per reaction. The linearity test of both methodologies was evaluated by means of linear regression analysis (average of the Ct values versus logarithmic concentration values).
Analytical Specificity of RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK
Cross-reactivity of SMARTCHEK RT-qPCR was evaluated from fourteen viral RNAs: influenza viruses (A and B), respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, Zika virus, and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
Evaluation of RT-qPCR in clinical samples
In the evaluation of the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK, the primers and probes described by Corman et al. [
7] were used, taking the conventional RT-qPCR as reference method. A total of 360 nasopharyngeal swab samples were used for the study. An estimation of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK was performed.
Statistical analysis
The analysis of the diagnostic accuracy data was performed with the statistical program Stata v16.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of SMARTCHEK RT-qPCR were estimated. Likewise, the results obtained between both methodologies were compared. All point estimators obtained were accompanied by their 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
To compare the linearity of the RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK assay and the RT-qPCR, the concentrations of the serial dilutions were plotted on the X axis and the average Ct of the three replicates performed on the Y axis. Correlation coefficient R2 obtained in the linear regression was used to determine the linearity of the RT-qPCR assay. LoD was calculated by Probit regression analysis, at 95% probability to detect the analytic limit that can be reliably detected by molecular assays, using MedCalc v19.21 software. The degree of agreement was quantified by Cohen’s kappa statistic and correlation between methodologies was evaluated using the Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Also, Ct values were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis. On the Y axis, the differences in Ct between both methods (AB) were represented, while on the X axis, the average of the two measurements was represented (A + B/two).
Discussion
COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated being an important public health problem for its quick and easy dissemination in the world, showing the importance to count with reliable diagnostic methods for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Currently, a lot of investigation institutions around the world are focusing on implement new detection technologies based on RT-qPCR, in order to contribute with the opportune and fast diagnose of patient with suspected of COVID-19 [
12].
Since the pandemic started, an important number of prevention measures have been proposed, which include providing an opportune diagnosis [
6,
8,
13]. The RT-qPCR test is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a standard test [
6] and is used as a reference for the validation of alternative molecular test for diagnosis such as the validation of commercial kits with clinical samples. In this context, it is necessary to implement new alternatives of molecular tests to RT-qPCR that are low cost, easy to use, and that can bring quick results with a high sensitivity and specificity, in order to strengthen prevention in areas where the access to molecular test is limited.
During the pandemic, different specific primers and probes for the SARS-CoV-2 detection had been accomplished, showing that the
ORF1ab gene, in spite of being conserved, is less sensitive than other target genes [
14]. The RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK has been raised for the detection of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (
RdRp) which encodes a fragment of the
ORF1b region and shows a high level of intragroup conservation; therefore, it is an ideal target for its application on the diagnosis [
15,
16]. Also, the RT-qPCR detects the
N gene, which is less conserved but more sensitive than other target genes [
7]. In the current validation, it has been shown that the
RdRp gene is more sensitive and specific than the
N gene using as gold standard the RT-qPCR recommended by the WHO [
6,
8]. The RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK provides a mixed result of both genes achieving a sensitivity of 98.1% and a specificity of 98.8%, highly comparable by the methodology proposed by Corman et al. who obtained a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 100% [
7]. In other investigations, it had also been proved that diagnostic tests enhance the efficacy of the detection [
17,
18].Despite having sensitivity and specificity values above 98%, false positives and negatives have been detected oriented to samples with a low viral load of SARS-CoV-2 with very low Ct values; these results also tend to appear in other methodologies for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus [
23,
24], being the main inconvenience transporting the sample to the processing laboratories.
The LoD of the RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK using the synthetic control 2019-nCoV_RdRP (ORF1ab) presented a lower logarithmic unit than the RT-qPCR
RdRp gene proposed by Corman et al. [
24]; and the synthetic control 2019-nCoV_E presented the same LoD as the RT-qPCR; these data are very similar to those reported by Chang et al. [
15] using an in vitro viral RNA, obtaining a LoD of 11.2 copies/reaction of RNA and 21.3 copies/reaction of RNA on the COVID-19-
RdRp and COVID-19-
N, respectively. Also, RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK was sensitive enough by detecting the SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical sample, obtaining a LoD for the
RdRp and
N genes until 10
4dilution of RNA in the sample, similar to the description made by Zou et al. [
20]; Pan et al. [
21] and Wölfel et al. [
22], who have shown that infected people had in their majority a high viral charge (between 10
4 and 10
8 copies of genome/mL for nasopharyngeal or saliva sample) during the first day of initial symptoms and probably during the pre-syndromic phase.
Finally, this study has some limitations including the necessity to perform RNA extraction before PCR reaction and the limited volume of clinical samples to perform the parallel control. Despite these limitations, RT-qPCR SMARTCHECK is a cost-effective method based on portability that provides a rapid RT-qPCR reaction and a comparable specificity/sensitivity with standard RT-qPCR.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the RT-qPCR SMARTCHEK could be an alternative to give an opportune diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, being a platform that gives fast results, with high sensitivity and specificity, having the possibility to improve it by using a quick extraction method that can be used in laboratories of the primary health-care attention from countries which do not have an appropriate structure or adequate equipment.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.