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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Livestock aggregated samples for monitoring viruses infecting animals and potentially zoonotic viral pathogens.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Validation of digital PCR as a complementary tool to MS2 plaque assay for virucidal activity assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Rotavirus Infections: Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Consistent trends from different methods for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 in urban wastewater during a 29-month longitudinal study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review of High Throughput Wastewater Sample Processing for Infectious Disease Surveillance: Challenges, Progress, and Future Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater from a shared septic system and sub-sewershed sites to expand COVID-19 disease surveillance.Journal of water and health · 2024Article
- A multiplex digital PCR assay for detection and quantitation of porcine circovirus type 2 and type 3.Archives of virology · 2024Article
- A scoping review of global SARS-CoV-2 wastewater-based epidemiology in light of COVID-19 pandemic.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Wastewater-based surveillance as a tool for public health action: SARS-CoV-2 and beyond.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Evaluating the sensitivity of droplet digital PCR for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.