ArticleScientific reports2022
Validation and advantages of using novel RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation and application of a standardized quantitative PCR assay for the assessment of antimicrobial resistance genes in surface water.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A fully automated rotary microfluidic platform for high-throughput multiplex detection of respiratory tract pathogens.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Article
- ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in human kidney tissue and urine extracellular vesicles with age, sex, and COVID-19.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2025Article
- Two-Stage Mixed-Dye-Based Isothermal Amplification with Ribonuclease-Cleavable Enhanced Probes for Dual-Visualization Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Interest.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Rapid and Accurate Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant with a CRISPR-Cas12a Reaction in the RT-qPCR Pot.ACS omega · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and play a major role in viral subtyping for rapid detection and monitoring of important mutations, containing the spread of new virus variants. We wanted to compare RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays to Sanger Sequencing for detection of variants within the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and examined their sensitivity and specificity. Samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 663 + 82) were subtyped using both Sanger sequencing and five RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays specific for the mutations N501Y, P681H, E484K, K417N/T, and N439K. The results of the two methods were compared. The training cohort and the clinical validation cohort showed equally, or significantly better sensitivity of the assays compared to the Sanger sequencing. The agreement of the Sanger sequencing and the assays ranged from 92.6 to 100% for the training cohort and 99.4-100% for the clinical validation. The sensitivity, specificity, and turn-around time of the RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays are well-suited for clinical monitoring of VOCs, making the assays an important tool in contact tracing and risk stratification. Furthermore, the assays were able to indicate the presence of new mutations in the complementary sequence to the mutation-specific probes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.