Reducing persistently positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses using long-range RT-qPCR

Detection of infectious and non-infectious influenza A virus

Ultraviolet C (UVC) can create cross-links or breaks in nucleic acid strands and inactivate influenza A virus (6, 8, 9) and SARS-CoV-2 (10-15). To investigate the ability of RT-qPCR methods to distinguish between infectious and non-infectious RNA viruses, we first inactivated influenza A virus strain A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) using UVC. Following optimization and calibration of our instrument (Fig. 2A), we exposed 25 µl 10⁶ pfu/ml influenza A virus to 54 W of UVC for 5 to 60 seconds. The exposed virus was subsequently serially diluted to determine the virus titer by plaque assay and found to be completely inactivated after 60 seconds (Fig. 2A). Viral RNA was next extracted and cDNA generated using random hexamers or a universal influenza A virus primer capable of binding to the 3′ end of the viral genome. cDNA levels were subsequently analyzed using primer sets specific for the influenza A virus M or NA segment (Fig. 2B and 2C, respectively). qPCR signals obtained with the 3′ end cDNA showed an increase in Ct value that was strongly correlated with the virus titer and length of UVC exposure (Fig. 2C). No effect of UVC was observed on the viral nucleoprotein, which forms ribonucleoprotein complexes with the viral RNA (16) (Fig. 2B). By contrast, the qPCR signal obtained with the random hexamers showed a smaller change in Ct value (Fig. 2C). Together these results suggest that a long-range RT-qPCR protocol that uses a primer that binds to the 3′ end of the viral genome during the cDNA synthesis reaction provides the best estimate of the infectious viral titer.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Relation between influenza A virus inactivation and Ct value. (A) The UVC intensity was measured for every exposure (left) and the effect of UVC on the virus titer determined by plaque assay (right). Influenza A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) virus was placed on a plastic surface and exposed for 5 to 60 seconds at 11 to 54 W UVC. (B) Top - gel electrophoresis analysis of M segment RT-PCR signal after UVC exposure at 54W. The RT step was performed using a universal influenza A virus 3′ terminal RT primer. Bottom - western analysis using an antibody specific for the influenza A virus NP protein. (C) Relation between UVC exposure at 54 W, the influenza A virus A/WSN/1933 titer, and the qPCR signal following RT reactions with random hexamers or a universal influenza A virus primer capable of binding to the 3′ terminus of each of the eight viral RNA segments. qPCR was performed using primers specific for the NA segment. Plaque assay results that were not detectable (n.d.; open squares) are indicated. RT-qPCR signals that were not detectable are shown as Ct = 40 on graph.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection

To investigate if a 3′ RT primer can differentiate between UVC-exposed and unexposed SARS-CoV-2 RNA, SARS-CoV-2 RNA from infected cells was exposed to 54 W of UVC for 0 to 120 sec. Next, RT reactions were performed using random hexamers or an oligo-dT₂₀ primer capable of binding to the 3′ polyA-tail of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome. Subsequent qPCR analysis using CDC-recommended primer sets targeting the N and ORF1ab coding regions showed a clear change in the Ct value as function of the exposure time for the 3′ samples amplified with both primer sets (Fig. 3A), but a relatively limited change in Ct value for the random hexamer samples with both primer sets (Fig. 3A). We next exposed COVID-19 clinical samples to UVC and detected the intact viral RNA genome levels using random hexamer or oligo-dT₂₀ for the cDNA synthesis. As shown in Fig. 3B, we observed a significant difference between the UVC exposed and unexposed samples using the oligo-dT₂₀ method, but not using random hexamers.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Differential detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. (A) RT-qPCR of SARS-CoV-2 RNA following UVC exposure for 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 or 60 seconds at 54 W UVC. Data were fit with linear regression. Signals that were not detectable (n.d.) are indicated with open squares. (B) RT-qPCR of COVID-19 clinical samples following 0 or 120 seconds of 54W of UVC exposure. (C) RT-qPCR of COVID-19 clinical samples obtained within 5 days of the onset of clinical symptoms or after 15 days following the onset of clinical symptoms. RT-qPCR signals that were not detectable are shown as open squares at Ct = 40 on graph. Significance was tested using one-way ANOVA with multiple corrections. Not significant (n.s.), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***).

Finally, we investigated if the two RT-qPCR methods yielded different results over the course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. To this end, we analyzed clinical samples obtained within the first 5 days of the onset of symptoms (i.e., when SARS-CoV-2 infected patients are infectious) and samples obtained at least 15 days after the onset of symptoms (i.e., when most patients have recovered). As shown in Fig. 3C and Table S1, we observed no significant difference between the two RT-qPCR methods for the COVID-19 samples taken withing 5 days of the onset of symptoms, suggesting that they are equally efficient at detecting infectious viral RNA levels in clinical samples. However, a significant difference was observed in samples obtained more than 15 days after the onset of symptoms (Fig. 3C), with 7 out of 10 long-range RT-qPCR reactions producing no detectable signals for both qPCR primer sets, while all (n=10) standard RT-qPCR samples returned positive signals for at least one of the qPCR primer sets (Table S2).

Ethics nasopharyngeal swabs

Nasopharyngeal swabs for UVC inactivation study were obtained by Krsnaa Diagnostics Ltd. (KDL). Our use of these swabs was reviewed by the National Accreditation Board for testing and calibration Laboratories (NABL) and the authorized signatories of KDL for the Late. Jayabai Nanasaheb Sutar Hospital, and approved on 22 June 2021. KDL is accredited by the NABL with ISO 15189:2012 compliance and approved by ICMR, with ICMR code KDPLP. Nasopharyngeal swab samples for the time-course analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infections were obtained from Vilnius Santaros Klinikos Biobank (Vilnius, Lithuania). The investigation was approved by Vilnius Regional Bioethics Committee (approval number 2021/5-1342-818).

Viruses and cells

HEK 293T, Vero-E6 and MDCK cells were originally sourced from ATCC. Influenza A/WSN/33 (H1N1) virus was produced by transfecting a 12-plasmid rescue system into HEK 293T cells (17). After two days, the P0 virus was amplified on MDCK cells in Minimal Essential Medium (MEM; Gibco) containing 0.5% fetal bovine serum (FBS; Sigma) at 37 °C and 5% CO₂. P1 and P2 viruses were aliquoted and stored at −70 °C. SARS-CoV-2 Bavpat-1 was grown on Vero-E6 cells in Dulbecco’s Minimal Essential Medium (DMEM; Gibco) containing 0.5% FBS at 37 °C and 5% CO₂. Viral RNA was extracted using Trizol (Invitrogen) as described previously (18).

UVC chamber and exposure

For UVC exposure, we used a Suraxa® UVC chamber (Pune Instrumentation Private Limited (PIPL)). The unit contained four 254 nm UVC light tubes (Philips) whose output could be adjusted manually and measured using a UV light power meter placed in the center of the unit. The setting used were 11, 32, 43 or 54 W. Samples were placed in a polystyrene well (TRP product number 92012) and positioned, without lid, on the bottom rack in the middle of the UVC chamber. UVC exposures were subsequently performed as indicated in the results section and figures. After UVC exposure, virus was eluted using 275 µl PBS/0.05% Tween-80 (19) and transferred to 1.5 ml tubes for plaque assays.

Plaque assays

Plaque assays were performed as described previously (19). Briefly, samples were serially diluted in MEM containing 0.5% FBS. Two hundred µl of diluted virus was next added to confluent MDCK cells and incubated for 1 hour 37 °C. After virus adsorption to the MDCK cells, the inoculum was removed and replaced with 2 ml MEM/agarose overlay (MEM, 0.5% FBS, 1% agarose). Plaques were grown for 2 days at 37 °C and then fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS. Plaques were counter-stained with 0.01% crystal violet in water and washed with tap water before analysis.

RT-qPCR analysis of influenza A virus RNA levels

Viral RNA was extracted from 50 µl of elution material using Trizol (Invitrogen) as described previously (18). Extracted RNA was resuspended in 10 µl water. Next, 1 µl of viral RNA was used for reverse transcription with universal influenza 3′ primer TUMI 12G or random hexamers (Thermo Fisher) and SuperScript III (Invitrogen). qPCR was performed using primers specific for the NA segment (20) and Brilliant III Master Mix with high Rox (Agilent) on a Step-One plus qPCR machine.

RT-qPCR analysis of UVC exposed SARS-CoV-2 RNA samples

Viral RNA was extracted from 50 µl of elution material using Trizol (Invitrogen) as described previously (18). Extracted RNA was resuspended in 10 µl water. Next, 1 µl of viral RNA was used for reverse transcription with oligo-dT₂₀ (Thermo Fisher) or random hexamers and SuperScript III. qPCR was performed using previously described primers specific for the ORF1ab or N coding regions (21). The qPCR was run and analyzed on a QuantStudio 5 or Step-One plus qPCR machine according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

RT-qPCR analysis of persistently positive time course samples

Viral RNA was extracted using the MagMAX Viral/Pathogen Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit (Thermo Fisher). Next, 4 µl of RNA was mixed with 1 µl of 50 µM oligo-dT₂₀ (Thermo Fisher) and 6.4 µl of water. The primer/RNA mix was incubated for 2-3 min at 95 °C and immediately placed on ice afterwards. cDNA produced using Maxima H minus reverse transcriptase (Thermo Fisher) at 50 °C for 1 hour according to the manufacturer’s instructions. qPCR analysis was performed by adding 5 µl of cDNA to a TaqPath qPCR reaction (Thermo Fisher). The qPCR was started with a 2 min 95 °C denaturation step to inactivate the RT enzyme in the TaqPath kit. This was then followed by 40 cycles of 3 sec 95 °C and 30 seconds at 60 °C. The reactions were analyzed on a QuantStudio 5 qPCR machine.

Statistics

For statistical testing, we used one-way ANOVA and multiple corrections. Statistical testing was performed using GraphPad Prism 9.0.

Role of the funding sources

The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or writing of the manuscript.