Abstract
Introduction Molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a huge challenge to many countries around the world. The cost of tests to check infected people is inaccessible since specialized teams and equipment are not disposable in remote locations. Herein, we compared the fitness of two primers sets to the SARS-CoV-2 N gene in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19.
Materials and Methods The 1029 patient samples were tested to presense/abscence molecular test using in house US CDC protocol. We compared the fitness of two primers sets to two different regions of N gene targets.
Results Both targets, N1 and N2 displayed similar fitness during testing with no differences between Ct or measurable viral genome copies. In addition, we verified security ranges Cts related to positive diagnostic with Ct above 35 value failuring in 66,6% after retesting of samples.
Main conclusion Our data suggest that it is secure to use just one primer set to the N gene to identify SARS-CoV-2 in samples and the labs should be careful to set positive samples in high Ct values using high cutoffs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Sponsorship: Associacao Baiana de Produtores de Algodao (ABAPA); Associacao Baiana de Agricultores Irrigantes da Bahia (AIBA); Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB) (Grant Number: #1381/2020); FINEP (Grant Number: #0418000600); CNPq; CAPES, MEC, MCTIC.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Research Ethics Committee of UFOB approved this study in 2020 (license number: 30629520.6.0000.0008). All clinical investigations were conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Sponsorship: Associação Baiana de Produtores de Algodão (ABAPA); Associação Baiana de Agricultores Irrigantes da Bahia (AIBA); Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB) (Grant Number: #1381/2020); FINEP (Grant Number: #0418000600); CNPq; CAPES, MEC, MCTIC.
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary material.
