VOOZH about

URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32221523/

⇱ Quantitative Detection and Viral Load Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in Infected Patients - PubMed


Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable.
Skip to main page content
👁 Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

👁 Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a public health emergency. The widely used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method has limitations for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Methods: A total of 323 samples from 76 COVID-19-confirmed patients were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-PCR based 2 target genes (ORF1ab and N). Nasal swabs, throat swabs, sputum, blood, and urine were collected. Clinical and imaging data were obtained for clinical staging.

Results: In 95 samples that tested positive by both methods, the cycle threshold (Ct) of RT-PCR was highly correlated with the copy number of ddPCR (ORF1ab gene, R2 = 0.83; N gene, R2 = 0.87). Four (4/161) negative and 41 (41/67) single-gene positive samples tested by RT-PCR were positive according to ddPCR with viral loads ranging from 11.1 to 123.2 copies/test. The viral load of respiratory samples was then compared and the average viral load in sputum (17 429 ± 6920 copies/test) was found to be significantly higher than in throat swabs (2552 ± 1965 copies/test, P < .001) and nasal swabs (651 ± 501 copies/test, P < .001). Furthermore, the viral loads in the early and progressive stages were significantly higher than that in the recovery stage (46 800 ± 17 272 vs 1252 ± 1027, P < .001) analyzed by sputum samples.

Conclusions: Quantitative monitoring of viral load in lower respiratory tract samples helps to evaluate disease progression, especially in cases of low viral load.

Keywords: COVID-19; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2; ddPCR; viral load.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Cite

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.