⚡️Third paper in our #SARSCoV2 diagnostics trilogy is published online in @PLOSBiology now! A short reflection on 1 year of PCR assay development👇

journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar… 2/7 In March 2020, we started by comparing sensitivity and efficiency of early #SARSCoV2 PCR assays. Based on our findings we established a modified assay with the CDC N1, N2, and RP primer-probe sets for the Yale IMPACT biorepository @YaleSPH @YaleMed

nature.com/articles/s4156…

1/6 Our #SARSCoV2 PCR comparison is now online as a preprint! We show that PCR assays are able to detect SARS-CoV-2, but with different detection limits and variable ability to differentiate between true negatives and positives at low RNA concentrations.

medrxiv.org/content/10.110… 2/6 We standardized PCR reagents and conditions to make a fair comparison between nine primer-probe sets from 4 commonly used assays. We determined analytical sensitivity by spiking SARS-CoV-2 RNA into mock extracts from negative NP swabs (collected in 2017).

Several qRT-PCR assays have been developed for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 across the world. It is essential that test results are comparable between assays, but to our knowledge, no comparison has been made between assays. We compared commonly used primer-probe sets at similar concentrations (F: 500 nM, R: 500 nM, P: 250 nM). Most sets worked well, except for Berlin-RdRp. Details on primers and probes used in each assay can be found here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…