Bleichner L, Bleicher V, Göhring N, Kleiboeker SB. Validation of the VIRSeek SARS-CoV-2 Mplex Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 on Stainless-Steel Surfaces: AOAC Performance Tested MethodSM 122006.
J AOAC Int 2021;
104:872-888. [PMID:
33848353 PMCID:
PMC8083283 DOI:
10.1093/jaoacint/qsab045]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 03/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Background
The Eurofins GeneScan Technologies’ VIRSeek SARS-CoV-2 Mplex kit is a RT-qPCR assay for the detection of two targets on the N-gene (nucleocapsid) of SARS-CoV-2. An extraction control, that allows monitoring of the extraction procedure and PCR inhibition, is included.
Objective
In-silico analysis and wet testing showed inclusivity and exclusivity of the assay. The complete workflow starting from surface swabbing (VIRSeek PATHOSwab kit), RNA extraction (VIRSeek RNAExtractor), RT-PCR (VIRSeek SARS-CoV-2 Mplex) and evaluation with FastFinder was validated in comparison to the CDC method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 on stainless steel.
Methods
In-silico analysis was performed by using the MFOLD online program. The matrix study was performed for stainless steel inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 isolated from the first documented US case of a traveler from Wuhan, China.
Results
For inclusivity, 15,764 sequences were analyzed and all mismatches (0.37% of the sequences had single mismatches) were considered non-critical. Cross reactivity for closely related viruses and background organisms was performed, resulting in correct exclusion of all. No significant differences were observed for the POD study when comparing to the CDC method.
Conclusions
Results of the inclusivity and exclusivity study show that the assay is specific for detection SARS-CoV-2. The POD study showed no statistically significant difference compared to the CDC reference method, results were identical for the uninoculated and the high level. For the fractional recovery level, the candidate method detected 9/17 samples leading to a POD of 0.47, the reference method detected 11/20 samples leading to a POD of 0.55.
Collapse