Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 26;265:66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2018.12.010

Table 2.

Comparative results of clinical samples tested by conventional RT-PCR, SYBR green-based RT-qPCR and probe-based RT-qPCR for SADS-CoV detection.

Samples Number of samples Number of SADS-CoV positive samples
Conventional RT-PCR SYBR-based RT-qPCR probe-based RT-qPCR
Heart 10 3 (13.36–26.16)a 5 (13.36–33.67)b 5 (18.28–34.41)c
Lung 10 4 (14.61–25.23) 6 (14.61–34.45) 6 (20.23–34.98)
Liver 10 4 (15.06–28.63) 7 (15.06–33.23) 7 (20.83–34.04)
Spleen 10 3 (17.23–26.18) 7 (17.23–32.54) 7 (21.35–33.78)
Kidney 10 4 (11.57–27.63) 6 (11.57–31.67) 6 (16.73–32.39)
Jejunum 10 8 (9.36–28.58) 8 (9.36–28.58) 8 (15.28–30.35)
Duodenum 12 9 (8.67–27.78) 11 (8.67–29.67) 11 (14.16–31.41)
Ileum 12 10 (9.17–28.58) 12 (9.17–30.24) 12 (14.79–31.89)
Total 84 45 62 62
a

Ct values of the positive samples in both SYBR green-based RT-qPCR and conventional RT-PCR.

b

Ct values of the positive samples in SYBR green-based RT-qPCR.

c

Ct values of the positive samples in probe-based RT-qPCR.