2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of qualitative and quantitative analyses of COVID-19 clinical samples

Abstract: Highlights RT-qPCR and ddPCR were used for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids detection. ddPCR shows higher sensitivity and lower limit of detection than RT-qPCR. ddPCR successfully detected the dynamic changes in viral load while RT-qPCR failed to detect it. Low-viral-load samples were not uncommon in clinical SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids testing.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
35
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(14 reference statements)
1
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…175 The transcriptome of single human primary fibroblasts by drop-seq procedure during the first hours of HSV-1 lytic infection gave a deep insight into biological processes involving the early stages of HSV-1 infection. 176 scseq-RNA is a useful tool for virus-host analysis.…”
Section: Chinese Researchers Have Introduced a Pcr-based Crispr-cas13amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…175 The transcriptome of single human primary fibroblasts by drop-seq procedure during the first hours of HSV-1 lytic infection gave a deep insight into biological processes involving the early stages of HSV-1 infection. 176 scseq-RNA is a useful tool for virus-host analysis.…”
Section: Chinese Researchers Have Introduced a Pcr-based Crispr-cas13amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, future research should address the association of ultra-low SARS-CoV-2 loads with infectivity, specific immunity and, particularly, the induction of neutralising antibodies. Based on the above arguments, semiquantitative results relative to viral load (high, middle and low viral load, borderline within the grey zone) instead of only qualitative RT-qPCR test results (positive × negative) would better assist clinicians in risk-stratifying patients and their contacts and choosing more appropriate quarantine conditions [ 9 ] and, eventually, more appropriate therapies [ 21 , 32 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, dPCR showed higher sensitivity than RT‐qPCR in the testing of clinical samples. Some samples from patients with confirmed COVID‐19 were classified as positive by dPCR but found inconclusive or negative by RT‐qPCR 16,18–22 . For example, Suo et al 16 .…”
Section: Applications Of Digital Pcr In Covid‐19 Pandemicmentioning
confidence: 99%