Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36450877›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Comparison of RT-dPCR and RT-qPCR and the effects of freeze-thaw cycle and glycine release buffer for wastewater SARS-CoV-2 analysis.

Bonnie Jaskowski Huge, Devin North, C Bruce Mousseau, Kyle Bibby, Norman J Dovichi, Matthew M Champion

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bonnie Jaskowski HugeDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Devin NorthDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
C Bruce MousseauDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Kyle BibbyDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Norman J DovichiDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Matthew M ChampionDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA. Matthew.M.Champion.8@nd.edu.
University of Notre Dame · US

Funding

Advances in bioanalysisR35GM136334 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME · PI DOVICHI, NORMAN J · 2020 to 2024
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM136334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public health efforts to control the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic rely on accurate information on the spread of the disease in the community. Acute and surveillance testing has been primarily used to characterize the extent of the disease. However, obtaining a representative sample of the human population is challenging because of limited testing capacity and incomplete testing compliance. Wastewater-based epidemiology is an agnostic alternative to surveillance testing that provides an average sample from the population served by the treatment facility. We compare the performance of reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcription digital droplet PCR (RT-dPCR) for analysis of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a regional wastewater treatment facility in northern Indiana, USA from the earliest stages of the pandemic. 1-L grab samples of wastewater were clarified and concentrated. Nucleic acids were extracted from aliquots and analyzed in parallel using the two methods. Synthetic viral nucleic acids were used for method development and generation of add-in standard-curves. Both methods were highly sensitive in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, with detection limits as low as 1 copy per 500 mL wastewater. RT-qPCR and RT-dPCR provided essentially identical coefficients of variation (s/[Formula: see text] = 0.15) for triplicate measurements made on wastewater samples taken on 16 days. We also observed a sevenfold decrease in viral load from a grab sample that was frozen at - 80 °C for 92 days compared to results obtained without freezing. Freezing samples before analysis should be discouraged. Finally, we found that treatment with a glycine release buffer resulted in a fourfold inhibition in RT-qPCR signal; treatment with a glycine release buffer also should be discouraged. Despite their prevalence and convenience in wastewater analysis, glycine release and freezing samples severely and additively (~ tenfold) degraded recovery and detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Indexed as

COVID-19FabaceaeNucleic AcidsFreezingGlycineHumansReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReverse TranscriptionRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2WastewaterGlycineNucleic AcidsRNA, ViralWastewater

Identifiers

PMID36450877
PMCPMC9709738
OpenAlexW4310602841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.