Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.3892/ijmm.2020.4673 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.3892/ijmm.2020.4673 32705153!7388836!32705153     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Mol+Med 2020 ; 46 (3): 957-964 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32705153|t=2020. Sensitivity assessment of droplet digital PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection |pdf=|usr=}}{{32705153}} gab.com Text Sensitivity assessment of droplet digital PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection JO: Int J Mol Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32705153 #FOAvip Reverse transcription?quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT?qPCR) is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of COVID?19 infection. Due to pre?analytical and technical limitations, samples with low viral load are often misdiagnosed as false?negative samples. Therefore, it is important to evaluate other strategies able to overcome the limits of RT?qPCR. Blinded swab samples from two individuals diagnosed positive and negative for COVID?19 were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT?qPCR in order to assess the sensitivity of both methods. Intercalation chemistries and a World Health Organization (WHO)/Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?approved probe for the SARS?CoV?2 N gene were used. SYBR?Green RT?qPCR is not able to diagnose as positive samples with low viral load, while, TaqMan Probe RT?qPCR gave positive signals at very late Ct values. On the contrary, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity rate compared to RT?qPCR and both EvaGreen and probe ddPCR were able to recognize the sample with low viral load as positive even at 10?fold diluted concentration. In conclusion, ddPCR shows higher sensitivity and specificity compared to RT?qPCR for the diagnosis of COVID?19 infection in false?negative samples with low viral load. Therefore, ddPCR is strongly recommended in clinical practice for the diagnosis of COVID?19 and the follow?up of positive patients until complete remission. Twit Text FOAVip Sensitivity assessment of droplet digital PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection ????Int J Mol Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32705153 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32705153 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32705153}}</ref> Sensitivity assessment of droplet digital PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection #MMPMID32705153 Falzone L; Musso N; Gattuso G; Bongiorno D; Palermo CI; Scalia G; Libra M; Stefani S Int J Mol Med 2020[Sep]; 46 (3): 957-964 PMID32705153show ga Reverse transcription?quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT?qPCR) is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of COVID?19 infection. Due to pre?analytical and technical limitations, samples with low viral load are often misdiagnosed as false?negative samples. Therefore, it is important to evaluate other strategies able to overcome the limits of RT?qPCR. Blinded swab samples from two individuals diagnosed positive and negative for COVID?19 were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT?qPCR in order to assess the sensitivity of both methods. Intercalation chemistries and a World Health Organization (WHO)/Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?approved probe for the SARS?CoV?2 N gene were used. SYBR?Green RT?qPCR is not able to diagnose as positive samples with low viral load, while, TaqMan Probe RT?qPCR gave positive signals at very late Ct values. On the contrary, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity rate compared to RT?qPCR and both EvaGreen and probe ddPCR were able to recognize the sample with low viral load as positive even at 10?fold diluted concentration. In conclusion, ddPCR shows higher sensitivity and specificity compared to RT?qPCR for the diagnosis of COVID?19 infection in false?negative samples with low viral load. Therefore, ddPCR is strongly recommended in clinical practice for the diagnosis of COVID?19 and the follow?up of positive patients until complete remission. |Betacoronavirus/*genetics[MESH] |COVID-19[MESH] |Coronavirus Infections/*diagnosis[MESH] |Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics[MESH] |Pandemics[MESH] |Phosphoproteins[MESH] |Pneumonia, Viral/*diagnosis[MESH] |Polyproteins[MESH] |RNA, Viral/*analysis[MESH] |Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/*methods[MESH] |Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/*methods[MESH] |SARS-CoV-2[MESH] |Sensitivity and Specificity[MESH] |Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics[MESH]Sensitivity assessment of droplet digital PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing