Anatomy of a real-time PCR or RT-PCR (PCR or RT-rPCR) curve.
Two things to highlight using these stylised rPCR curves.
First.
The yellow arrows highlight threshold cycles.
These are the "results". The number from the point at which each curve crosses that arbitrary horizontal threshold are recorded by the lab and reported as "detected"
Second.
These values are *not* the same numbers as the TOTAL number of cycles that the rPCR is run for (you can read about cycles here if of interest virologydownunder.com/the-mechanics-…)
So in this version, I've taken away the text and just left the Ct arrows for the 4 detected and a problematic result (bad curve shape, late) that would need further examination (green), and added a red arrow. That arrow marks the TOTAL number of cycles-differs from the Cts, yeah?
Can I just clarify - this is a stylised *example* - it's specific Ct values aren't specifically meaningful or applicable to every run of rPCR ever!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
That website opinion attack piece on the Corman/Drosten RT-rPCR tests has a few confused & sometimes very wrong comments.
I'll preface this thread with a *presumption* I'm making - these authors haven't worked on or with this test themselves. And that matters a lot if true.
I'm not going through everything but here's one from their "Top10 things I hate about this test" list.
From Number 5. "nor does it contain any other negative controls"
But Corman et al. are actually very clear that negative controls were included.
"all assays were tested 120 times in parallel with water and no other nucleic acid except the provided oligonucleotides. In none of these reactions was any positive signal detected"
But even better, they tested primer specificity on a lot of human viruses, including CoVs:
"In Australia, evidence of ABLV infection has been found in species of flying foxes/fruit bats and insect-eating microbats. It is assumed that any bat in Australia could potentially carry ABLV" health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/fac…
Hey all, if you want a mug like this; a guide.
Check my pinned tweet thread. Near the bottom is a link to my @figshare page where there's an editable .svg (Other images there as well).
I use @inkscape to make & edit .svg files.
Install the font I used (Repirse Script) *first*,
or use your own.
Edit the image to remove the text in the bottom right. Or keep it. Also think about squashing the image a little vertically tighter so it stretches further around mug, horizontally.
Export in a relavent image format (I save as .png format for here & my blog)
Next, find your local mug-making site. I used @Vistaprint but closer to home means faster delivery. Pick a mug colour (find another site if you can't get mug colours!). Place your image as a wraparound using the site's tool. Pay.
Recently asked to comment for an end of year 'what we've learned since January' story.
There is no way to do this justice in a few quotes or a short story.
We've learned so much about so many things.
Like the virus, disease, inequities, inequalities, the chaos sown by
misinformation, the driving desire of some to want things to blame & punish, the role of science in leadership, the need for public health institutions to have a greater role in education & authentic communication,
the importance of speed & flexibility in labs, that scientists can also be biased or mean or idiots (=group of humans), from lab test processes aren't widely understood (most of the time no one cares though),
COVID-19 testing and correlation with infectious virus, cycle thresholds, and analytical sensitivity cebm.net/study/covid-19… via @cebmoxford
Upfront-how one interprets late PCR results DOES MATTER. No argument. I am very much aware that late Cts mean less RNA (and by extrapolation based on history and experience, less virus) is typically present.
How does that relate to "false positives" & PCR cycle numbers?
A false-positive PCR result typically means that the PCR was positive when no virus had ever been present.
This is different from an infected person's sample not having any *infectious* virus, yet still returning a PCR-positive because of "dead virus"/RNA fragments being shed.