Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 19;18(1):e0280577. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280577

SARS-CoV-2 genotyping and sequencing following a simple and economical RNA extraction and storage protocol

Sarah Hernandez 1, Phuong-Vi Nguyen 1, Taz Azmain 2, Anne Piantadosi 1,2, Jesse J Waggoner 1,3,*
Editor: Ahmed S Abdel-Moneim4
PMCID: PMC9851494  PMID: 36656914

Abstract

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, supply chain shortages have caused major disruptions in sourcing the materials needed for laboratory-based molecular assays. With increasing demand for molecular testing, these disruptions have limited testing capacity and hindered efforts to mitigate spread of the virus and new variants. Here we evaluate an economical and reliable protocol for the extraction and short-term ambient temperature storage of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Additional objectives of the study were to evaluate RNA from this protocol for 1) detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the spike gene and 2) whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2. The RNAES protocol was evaluated with residual nasopharyngeal (NP) samples collected from Emory Healthcare and Emory Student Health services. All RNAES extractions were performed in duplicate and once with a commercial extraction robot for comparison. Following extraction, eluates were immediately tested by rRT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was successfully detected in 56/60 (93.3%) RNAES replicates, and Ct values corresponded with comparator results. Upon testing in spike SNP assays, three genotypes were identified, and all variant calls were consistent with those previously obtained after commercial extraction. Additionally, the SARS-RNAES protocol yield eluate pure enough for downstream whole genome sequencing, and results were consistent with SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing of eluates matched for Ct value. With reproducible results across a range of virus concentrations, the SARS-RNAES protocol could help increase SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing and monitoring for emerging variants in resource-constrained communities.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges to global outbreak responses in healthcare systems around the world. The ongoing effort to monitor the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and emergence of new variants in the community relies on consistent and accurate diagnostics with paired genomic surveillance [1–3]. Despite a large increase in the development of diagnostic platforms, the most reliable molecular techniques still require highly purified nucleic acids [4]. Sample-to-answer devices address this with expensive, onboard RNA extraction, but this does not yield material for downstream variant characterization or additional testing. In developing markets or those overwhelmed with demand, the proprietary materials needed for such techniques are difficult to source and maintain [5, 6].

Our group recently developed and optimized an economical and reliable protocol for the extraction and storage of RNA from blood-borne RNA viruses (termed the RNAES protocol) [7]. The RNAES protocol capitalizes on the charge-based chemistry of RNA-silica interactions to yield eluate compatible with diagnostic real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) testing. Using residual clinical samples collected from Autumn 2020 through Spring 2022, this protocol was evaluated for extraction of SARS-CoV-2, and the quality of eluted RNA was further evaluated using genotyping rRT-PCRs that detect single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the spike gene and a common whole genome sequencing protocol. Genotyping and sequencing are essential for monitoring the evolution of pathogenic viruses yet require larger amplicons than standard detection assays, and such methods were not evaluated during the initial development of the RNAES protocol [7].

Materials and methods

RNAES protocol

RNA was extracted from residual clinical material using the RNAES protocol, as previously described [7]. RNAES extraction packets were assembled with a 5.56-mm diameter membrane disk sandwiched between a square blotter pad base (25 x 25 x 2.5 mm; VWR International, Radnor, PA) and a Parafilm cover (Research Products International, Mt. Prospect, IL) with a 3.96-mm diameter aperture centered over the membrane. Briefly, the protocol consisted of incubating 25μL of respiratory swab sample in 25μL of lysis mixture (150 mM sucrose, Boston BioProducts, Ashland, MA; 5μg proteinase K, New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA; 2.5 μg carrier RNA, Qiagen, Germantown, MD; 100 mM KCl; and 50mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.0, MilliporeSigma) for 10 minutes. Following incubation, 100μL of arginine binding buffer (100 mM L-Arginine; 400 mM KCl, both from MilliporeSigma)/150μL ethanol mixture was combined with the lysate and run dropwise through 5.56mm circular filter membranes. Membranes were washed one time with 1M glycine-HCL buffer (pH 2.7±0.1, 10X Concentrate Solution); RNA was then eluted into 50μL Tris-EDTA buffer and subsequently tested by rRT-PCR. Whatman 3, Fusion 5, and glass microfiber (GF/D) membranes (all from MilliporeSigma, Burlington, WA) were evaluated for optimal performance with SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical samples and rRT-PCR

Residual nasopharyngeal (NP) samples collected from Emory Healthcare system and Emory Student Health services from Autumn, 2020 through Spring, 2022 were utilized for this study. Upon collection, samples were placed into saline or viral transport medium, deidentified, aliquoted, and stored at -80°C until nucleic acid extraction. All samples had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using one or more rRT-PCRs with targets in the nucleocapsid and envelope genes [2, 8, 9]. Use of anonymized residual NP samples for research performed in this study was reviewed and approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board, and the need for consent to use these specimens was waived.

During a single freeze-thaw cycle, all samples were re-extracted in duplicate with the RNAES packets and once using the MagMaxViral RNA Isolation Kit (Applied Biosystems) in a KingFisher Apex (ThermoFisher Scientific) commercial robotic extraction system. RNA was extracted from 25μL of sample and eluted into 50μL of buffer for both methods. For the MagMax extraction protocol, samples were brought up to a total initial volume of 150μL with PBS. Following extraction, eluates were immediately tested in the CDC Flu SC2 assay [10].

Spike SNP testing

Eluates that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the Flu SC2 assay with sufficient volume remaining were tested in two Spike SNP rRT-PCRs, which detect mutations in spike associated with variants of concern and were performed as previously described [2, 8]. Samples were run in two multiplex assays that contained probes for the following mutations: 1) K417 (positive with ancestral sequence), 452R, 484K, 501Y and 2) 452Q, 478K, and 490S. Flu SC2 and Spike SNP rRT-PCRs were performed on a Rotor-Gene Q instrument (Qiagen, Germantown, MD) using 5μL of eluate and 20μL of the Luna Probe one-step RT qPCR kit (NEB), for a total of 25μL per reaction.

Sequencing & analysis

Extracted RNA samples were treated with ArcticZymes HL-dsDNase enzyme followed by random priming and first strand cDNA synthesis using SuperScript IV (Invitrogen). Amplicon-based libraries were constructed from cDNA using xGen SARS-CoV-2 Amplicon panel (IDT) following the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, multiplex PCR was performed on 1st strand cDNA using SARS-CoV-2 specific primers with 18–25 cycles of amplification with a subsequent 1.0X Ampure XP bead cleanup (Beckman Coulter). Unique Dual Index primer pairs were added to 5’ and 3’ ends of amplicons to create ~300 bp libraries by means of Indexing PCR with 5–9 cycles of amplification followed by 0.65X Ampure XP bead cleanup. The libraries were quantified using KAPA universal complete kit (Roche), pooled to 4 nM and sequenced on Illumina Miseq with paired-end 150-bp reads. The whole genome consensus sequence was assembled using viralrecon analysis pipeline v2.4.4 [11]. Water was used as negative control.

Stability

RNA stability at ambient temperature on dried RNAES packet membranes was the assessed in 5 samples at 0, 1, 3, and 7 days post extraction (n = 8 packets per sample; two for each time point). To establish a baseline, samples were completely extracted on day 0 and immediately tested by rRT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using an assay for the N2 target, performed as previously described [9]. This assay was selected for use in the stability analysis because our group has evaluated this as a quantitative test. For each of the remaining time points (days 1, 3, and 7), dried membranes were stored in 1.5mL tubes and placed in zipper-locked plastic bags with desiccant packets. On the day of testing, RNA was eluted from dried membranes with 50μL TE buffer and eluates were immediately tested for comparison with day 0 results. A four-point standard curve with synthesized, quantified ssDNA containing the N2 target (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA) was included on each run to calculate SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration at each time point.

Statistical analysis

Calculation of means and standard deviations were done in Excel software (IBM). ANOVA and two-sided t-tests were performed in GraphPad Prism, version 9.3.1 (GraphPad Software).

Results

Membrane optimization

Extraction of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the RNAES protocol was evaluated using packets constructed with Fusion 5, Whatman 3 and GF/D membranes. All samples were extracted in duplicate with the RNAES packets and immediately tested by rRT-PCR. Fusion 5 was the only membrane that resulted in successful RNA recovery for 6/6 replicates tested, yielding an average N2 Ct value of 29.45 (standard deviation (SD) 1.91). None of the samples extracted with RNAES packets prepared with Whatman 3 or GF/D membranes resulted in detectable cycle threshold (Ct) values. Based on these data, Fusion 5 membranes were chosen for the final SARS-specific RNAES protocol.

Clinical evaluation

Thirty archived, residual samples were selected that had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR. On each day of testing, samples were thawed and extracted in duplicate with the RNAES protocol (n = 60) and once for comparison with a commercial Apex extraction robot, then subsequently tested by rRT-PCR in the Flu SC2 assay. Following extraction with RNAES packets, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was successfully detected in 56/60 replicates (93.3%) and Ct values corresponded with comparator results from the commercial extraction robot (Fig 1, S1 Table in S1 File). Extraction was successful in 55/56 replicates (98.2%) with Ct values following commercial extraction ≤ 30, compared to 1/4 replicates (25.0%) with Ct values > 30 (S1 Table in S1 File).

Fig 1. SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration in eluates from the RNAES protocol compared to the KingFisher Apex robotic extraction system.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Average Ct value for replicate RNAES extractions is displayed. Solid line displays the result of linear regression; dotted lines show the 95% confidence interval of the best-fit line.

Following extraction with RNAES packets, all eluates with detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA and sufficient remaining volume (n = 53 total) were tested in two separate Spike SNP rRT-PCRs. Out of those tested 52/53 (98.1%) had detectable signals in the Spike SNP assays (Table 1). Three genotypes were identified, of which the most common was K417variant/478K/501Y (31/53, 58.5%), consistent with Omicron variant. The two other genotypes detected in the eluates were K417 only (19/53, 35.8%), consistent with an ancestral lineage, and K417/452R/478K (2/53, 3.8%), consistent with Delta variant. Of the eluates for which Spike SNP testing was performed on the original samples (n = 38), all variant calls corresponded with those obtained after extraction with RNAES protocol.

Table 1. Genotypes detected in the Spike SNP assay following RNAES extraction.

Category  n (%) Ct, average (SD) Lineage
Tested in Spike SNP 53 (100) 28.6 (4.1)
Spike SNP genotype detected 52 (98.1) -
    K417 only  19 (35.8) 29.69 (3.31) Ancestral
    K417variant/478K/501Y  31 (58.5) 28.30 (4.64) Omicron
    K417/452R/478K  2 (3.8) 29.73 (1.53) Delta
Open in a new tab

“-” indicates no data for that field

RNA stability at ambient temperature

A subset of five SARS-positive samples were chosen to evaluate the stability of dried RNA when stored on Fusion 5 membranes for up to one week at ambient temperature (Fig 2, S2 Table in S1 File). On day 1, 1/10 replicates had no detectable signal, indicating failed extraction. All other replicates had detectable positive Ct values across the remaining time points (Fig 2). The range in concentration of samples was 0.32 to 2.61 log10 copies/μL on day 0 and 0.09 to 2.41 log10 copies/μL on day 7 (S2 Table in S1 File). Overall, no significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration in the RNAES eluates (expressed in log10 copies/μL) was detected from day 0 (mean 1.7, SD 0.9) to day 1 (1.5, 0.7; p = 0.93), day 3 (1.5, 0.9; p = 0.95), and day 7 (1.1, 1.0; p = 0.36).

Fig 2. Box and whisker plot of SARS-CoV-2 eluate RNA concentrations for samples extracted in RNAES packets with Fusion 5 membranes on day 0 or dried and stored on the membranes at ambient temperature for 1, 3, and 7 days after extraction.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

No significant change in RNA concentration over time was found by ANOVA (displayed on graph) or by t-test comparisons of results on days 1, 3, and 7 versus day 0 (p>0.05 for all comparisons). Whiskers extend from the maximum to minimum values.

Sequencing

SARS-CoV-2 full genome sequencing was performed for 13 representative samples spanning a range of Ct values from 23.5 to 33.6 (Table 2). Approximately 1 million total sequencing reads were generated from each sample (median 0.97 million, range 0.45–1.36 million), and complete SARS-CoV-2 genomes were assembled for most samples. Specifically, the 10 samples with SARS-CoV-2 Ct values < 30 yielded genomes with 99–100% coverage and a median depth of 1800-4900X. The 3 samples with SARS-CoV-2 Ct values > 30 yielded genomes with 85–97% coverage, which was sufficient for lineage classification. These results were very similar to results our group routinely obtains from samples with comparable Ct values extracted on two automated machines (KingFisher Apex and Abbott m2000sp, Table 2) [8].

Table 2. SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing results following extraction in the RNAES protocol compared to two reference automated extraction protocols.

Sample ID RNA extraction Ct Total # Reads Median Genome Coverage % Coverage <1x % Coverage > = 10x % Coverage > = 100x
4546 RNAES 23.54 917,426 3,120 0 100 100
EHC_C19_3973U KingFisher Apex 23.60 774,584 2,284 0 100 99
EHC_C19_2672T Abbott m2000sp 23.40 921,096 2,440 0 100 100
4628b RNAES 23.91 975,622 3,480 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4423C KingFisher Apex 23.80 819,620 2,193 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4028X Abbott m2000sp 23.80 897,420 2,566 0 100 99
1905 RNAES 24.42 788,444 2,556 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4429I KingFisher Apex 24.40 800,206 2,519 0 100 100
EHC_C19_2707C Abbott m2000sp 24.50 782,438 2,368 0 100 100
4628a RNAES 24.60 778,698 2,780 0 100 99
EHC_C19_4432L KingFisher Apex 24.70 944,770 2,369 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4211Y Abbott m2000sp 24.60 938,200 2,962 0 100 99
7141 RNAES 25.97 1,476,272 4,921 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4373E KingFisher Apex 25.90 1,163,252 4,378 0 100 100
EHC_C19_2699U Abbott m2000sp 25.90 1,127,414 3,433 0 100 100
6076 RNAES 26.02 972,010 3,346 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4438R KingFisher Apex 26.00 965,942 2,362 0 100 100
EHC_C19_3776F Abbott m2000sp 26.10 1,059,202 3,737 0 100 100
274 RNAES 26.07 534,842 1,799 0 100 100
EHC_C19_4444X KingFisher Apex 26.30 700,992 1,627 0 100 99
EHC_C19_2628D Abbott m2000sp 26.00 549,078 1,607 0 100 100
1172 RNAES 27.53 1,168,060 3,753 0 100 99
EHC_C19_4251M KingFisher Apex 27.40 1,108,946 1,958 0 99 97
EHC_C19_2657E Abbott m2000sp 27.20 982,188 2,538 0 100 99
38 RNAES 29.68 1,209,944 3,100 0 100 99
EHC_C19_3734P KingFisher Apex 29.80 976,210 2,348 0 99 98
EHC_C19_2706B Abbott m2000sp 29.80 1,125,398 4,035 0 100 100
6478 RNAES 29.70 1,363,276 3,456 0 99 99
EHC_C19_3960H KingFisher Apex 30.00 1,114,680 2,585 0 100 98
EHC_C19_2706B Abbott m2000sp 29.80 1,125,398 4,035 0 100 100
39 RNAES 30.60 1,181,994 240 7 87 63
EHC_C19_4379K KingFisher Apex 30.20 1,246,196 2,518 1 99 97
EHC_C19_3890P Abbott m2000sp 30.50 1,081,672 1,868 0 100 99
43 RNAES 30.69 454,358 718 14 85 77
EHC_C19_4100R KingFisher Apex 30.40 643,006 92 1 89 47
EHC_C19_4083A Abbott m2000sp 30.50 611,038 1,392 0 99 96
9160 RNAES 33.60 1,396,922 2,834 3 95 92
EHC_C19_3744Z KingFisher Apex 33.60 862,606 655 17 80 72
EHC_C19_4355M Abbott m2000sp 33.40 1,154,262 593 1 96 81
Open in a new tab

Discussion

The SARS-RNAES protocol successfully extracted SARS-CoV-2 RNA from residual swab samples at a cost of ~$0.08 per sample, and performance of the resulting eluates was similar to those of commercial extraction robots, matched for Ct value, in Spike SNP genotyping and whole genome sequencing protocols.

Limited and inconsistent access to reagents for viral RNA extraction has resulted in the development of extraction-free methods for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection. Such protocols utilize modified thermocycling conditions and additional master mix reagents to provide direct specimen testing, which is facilitated by relatively inhibitor-free primary clinical specimens [12–16]. While such techniques require less dedicated consumables and processing time, resulting nucleic acids cannot be applied to downstream molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 variants or further workup of negative cases. Moreover, extraction free methods require changes to laboratory biosafety practices and molecular workflow. In the current study, we demonstrate the suitability of the SARS-RNAES protocol for incorporation into SARS-CoV-2 genotyping or whole genome sequencing protocols. Performance of RNAES eluates was commensurate with those from expensive commercial robotic extraction systems, when matched on Ct values, in both the Spike SNP assay and a widely used whole genome sequencing protocol. Continuous identification of emerging variants has proven critical to understanding transmission patterns, viral evolution, and the clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infections [17–19]. SARS-RNAES, therefore, provides an economical and safe solution for sourcing RNA extraction reagents while provide material for critical viral characterization.

Expansive development of novel molecular diagnostics has been integral for the timely detection of SARS-CoV-2 to initiate effective treatment and isolate those who may transmit the virus. High demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing has made sourcing and maintaining the dedicated reagents and consumables for particular molecular platforms a major burden, thereby limiting their wide-scale implementation [5, 6]. The SARS-RNAES protocol is a simple, inexpensive method for the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA, utilizing easy-to-source laboratory reagents and materials. Without the use of electric instrumentation, hazardous chemicals, and costly consumables, the SARS-RNAES protocol demonstrated successful detection of 93.3% of clinical samples tested. Of samples with initial Ct values ≤30, 98.2% were successfully extracted using this protocol. Notably, using the laboratory reference protocols described in this study, our group has demonstrated a significant association between SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen and subgenomic RNA detection and Ct ≤30, indicating active viral replication and the potential for transmission [20, 21]. These data suggest that the SARS-RNAES protocol provides efficient RNA extraction from individuals at the highest risk to transmit in the community.

Finally, we examined the stability of extracted SARS-CoV-2 RNA on dried membranes for up 7 days at ambient temperature. Cold-chain requirements for sample collection, shipment, and storage has long since posed strict limitations on specimen handling. While the implications of poor storage conditions for RNA are well-established, a previous study highlights the importance of sample preparation and storage conditions for successful detection of SARS-CoV-2, reporting that improper conditions can lead to misclassification of up to 10.2% of SARS-CoV-2-positive cases [22]. Here we provide a successful and sustainable technique that addresses the limitations of current specimen handling requirements while maintaining accurate detection.

Limitations to the current study include the efficient extraction of SARS-CoV-2 RNA only from RNAES packets prepared with Fusion 5 membranes, in contradistinction to adequate extraction of blood-borne viruses on multiple membrane types [7]. This additionally impacts the window of nucleic acid stability at ambient temperatures, as we have found that RNA on Fusion 5 membranes remains stable for shorter periods of time compared to glass-fiber membranes. Further studies should examine these interactions more closely.

This safe and cost-effective technique was established to address key limitations in current protocols for nucleic acid extraction and storage. SARS-RNAES balances the competing demands placed on laboratories to maintain biosafe laboratory practices, ensure a consistent supply chain of reagents, and provide high-quality RNA for a variety of molecular applications. With reproducible results across a range of virus concentrations, the SARS-RNAES protocol could help increase SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing and monitoring for emerging variants in resource-constrained communities.

Supporting information

S1 File. S1 and S2 Tables displaying Ct values following RNA extraction with the SARS-RNAES protocol and a commercial extraction robot and the average concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (log10 copies/μL) in duplicate RNAES extractions following ambient temperature storage for 0-, 1-, 3-, and 7-days post extraction.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (104.2KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of the research team and the participants and their family members who have contributed to ongoing studies. We also thank Ali Haider, Maxwell Su, Jaewon Shin, and Victoria Stittleburg at Emory University for their assistance over the course of this project.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by an award from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Clinical Scientist Development Award 2019089, JJW; https://www.ddcf.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gomes L, Jeewandara C, Jayadas TP, Dissanayake O, Harvie M, Guruge D, et al. Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern by identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the spike protein by a multiplex real-time PCR. Journal of virological methods. 2021;300:114374. Epub 2021/11/26. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114374 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8607739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Martinez M, Nguyen P-V, Su M, Cardozo F, Valenzuela A, Franco L, et al. SARS-CoV-2 variants in Paraguay: Detection and surveillance with an economical and scalable molecular protocol. Viruses. 2022;14(5):873. doi: 10.3390/v14050873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. Guidance for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.United States Food and Drug Administration. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Emergency Use Authorizations for Medical Devices 2021 [cited 2021 21 Apr 2021]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices. [PubMed]
  • 5.Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, Thome B, Parker M, Glickman A, et al. Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19. The New England journal of medicine. 2020. Epub 2020/03/24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Volkin S. How has COVID-19 impacted supply chains around the world?. HUB [Internet]. 2020. 04/10/2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hernandez S, Cardozo F, Myers DR, Rojas A, Waggoner JJ. Simple and economical RNA extraction and storage packets for viral detection from serum or plasma. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. doi: 10.1101/2022.01.28.22270041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Babiker A, Immergluck K, Stampfer SD, Rao A, Bassit L, Su M, et al. Single-Amplicon Multiplex Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR with Tiled Probes To Detect SARS-CoV-2 spike Mutations Associated with Variants of Concern. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2021;59(12):e0144621. Epub 2021/08/26. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01446-21 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Waggoner JJ, Stittleburg V, Pond R, Saklawi Y, Sahoo MK, Babiker A, et al. Triplex Real-Time RT-PCR for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerging infectious diseases. 2020;26(7):1633–5. Epub 2020/04/16. doi: 10.3201/eid2607.201285 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7323516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research Use Only CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay Primers and Probes 2021 [cited 2021]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/multiplex-primer-probes.html.
  • 11.Patel H, Varona S, Monzón S, Espinosa-Carrasco J, Heuer ML, Gabernet G, et al. nf-core/viralrecon: nf-core/viralrecon v2.2—Tin Turtle. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Parikh RY, Nadig SN, Mehrotra S, Howe PH, Gangaraju VK. Direct NP- A cost-effective extraction-free RT-qPCR based test for SARS-CoV-2. Heliyon. 2022;8(6):e09735. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ñique AM, Coronado-Marquina F, Mendez Rico JA, García Mendoza MP, Rojas-Serrano N, Simas PVM, et al. A faster and less costly alternative for RNA extraction of SARS-CoV-2 using proteinase k treatment followed by thermal shock. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0248885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lai MY, Suppiah J, Thayan R, Ismail I, Mustapa NI, Soh TST, et al. RNA purification-free detection of SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Tropical Medicine and Health. 2022;50(1). doi: 10.1186/s41182-021-00396-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Villota SD, Nipaz VE, Carrazco-Montalvo A, Hernandez S, Waggoner JJ, Ponce P, et al. Alternative RNA extraction-free techniques for the real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab and sputum samples. Journal of virological methods. 2021;298:114302. Epub 2021/09/27. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114302 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8459549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vogels CBF, Watkins AE, Harden CA, Brackney DE, Shafer J, Wang J, et al. SalivaDirect: A simplified and flexible platform to enhance SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity. Med (N Y). 2021;2(3):263–80 e6. Epub 2021/02/02. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2020.12.010 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7836249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Babiker A, Bradley HL, Stittleburg VD, Ingersoll JM, Key A, Kraft CS, et al. Metagenomic Sequencing To Detect Respiratory Viruses in Persons under Investigation for COVID-19. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2020;59(1). Epub 2020/10/18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02142-20 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7771462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cheng XW, Li J, Zhang L, Hu WJ, Zong L, Xu X, et al. Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Their Clinical Significance in Hefei, China. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:784632. Epub 2022/01/28. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.784632 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8784789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.West AP Jr., Wertheim JO, Wang JC, Vasylyeva TI, Havens JL, Chowdhury MA, et al. Detection and characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.526 in New York. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):4886. Epub 2021/08/11. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25168-4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8352861 Institute of Technology for the use of mosaic nanoparticles as coronavirus immunogens. M.C.N., P.J.B. and C.O.B. are co-inventors on provisional applications for several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies. J.O.W. has received funding from Gilead Sciences, LLC (completed) and the CDC (ongoing) via grants and contracts to his institution unrelated to this research. All other authors declare no competing interests. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Immergluck K, Gonzalez MD, Frediani JK, Levy JM, Figueroa J, Wood A, et al. Correlation of SARS-CoV-2 Subgenomic RNA with Antigen Detection in Nasal Midturbinate Swab Specimens. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2021;27(11):2887–91. doi: 10.3201/eid2711.211135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Frediani JK, Levy JM, Rao A, Bassit L, Figueroa J, Vos MB, et al. Multidisciplinary assessment of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antigen test in the context of emerging viral variants and self-administration. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):14604. Epub 2021/07/18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94055-1 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8285474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li L, Li X, Guo Z, Wang Z, Zhang K, Li C, et al. Influence of Storage Conditions on SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Detection in Throat Swabs. J Infect Dis. 2020;222(2):203–5. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa272 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7313924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed S Abdel-Moneim

16 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-24969SARS-CoV-2 genotyping and sequencing following a simple and economical RNA Extraction and Storage protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Waggoner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported by an award from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Clinical Scientist Development Award 2019089, JJW).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This research was supported by an award from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Clinical Scientist Development Award 2019089, JJW; https://www.ddcf.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.  “

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have done an interesting work and have tried to come up with an alternative and economical solution for RNA extraction and short-term storage at ambient temperature for SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, they have also tried to evaluate the quality of the RNA isolated by their method for SNP detection and WGS.

The paper looks well written and structured, but I feel that it needs to shift the focus of introduction and discussion from the RNA extraction to SARS-CoV-2 genotyping and sequencing. The article in its current form gives a feeling of redundancy and replication of their recently published article “Simple and Economical Extraction of Viral RNA and Storage at Ambient Temperature” and little importance to the novel part of the work. Also, it would be better if the extraction protocol is explained properly in the method section of the article because RNA extraction method is one of the aims of work. Other than the writing part, I have few other concerns and questions related to the experiments.

I am surprised that why GF/D membranes, which had best yield for DENV-positive serum samples, didn’t work at all for the SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples. The authors have tried to find the reason, but I have few general questions related to it. Was there no RNA in the elution or the PCR didn’t work? How many times did they repeat the experiment with all the three membranes? Did they use the same set of samples and conducted the experiments at the same time?

One of the major claims of their work is the stability of the RNA at ambient temperature for 7 days. It would be worth knowing the difference in the Ct values for the samples eluted at different time points and their comparison with the MagMaxViral RNA Isolation Kit on day 0, for its practical applicability.

Have they tested the maximum time limit for successful RNA extraction?

The authors have shown that Ct values < 30 yielded genomes with 99-100% coverage. Was there any correlation between the RNA concentration and the Ct values of the samples?

Reviewer #2: First, I would like to congratulate the authors for the manuscript, it is well written and deals with a scientific relevant subject. This protocol may help laboratories around the world with limited resources to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples, specially when facing emergencial situations.

The main objective of the research was clear to me and the performed tests showed satisfying results. The comparison with commercial kits revealed the protocol to be consistent and the limitations of the work were properly highlighted. The only issue I had was with Table 1 "Genotypes detected in the Spike SNP assay following RNAES extraction.", it seems it is not well formatted. I kindly ask for the authors to take a look at it.

Best regards.

**********

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 19;18(1):e0280577. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280577.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

8 Dec 2022

Our response to reviewers document has been uploaded with the revision. We have addressed each comment in turn. In addition, we have made all changes requested to conform to PLOS ONE requirements. The funding statement, as originally generate in the online system, is accurate.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (15.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed S Abdel-Moneim

4 Jan 2023

SARS-CoV-2 genotyping and sequencing following a simple and economical RNA Extraction and Storage protocol

PONE-D-22-24969R1

Dear Dr. Waggoner,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Ahmed S Abdel-Moneim

6 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-24969R1

SARS-CoV-2 genotyping and sequencing following a simple and economical RNA Extraction and Storage protocol

Dear Dr. Waggoner:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. S1 and S2 Tables displaying Ct values following RNA extraction with the SARS-RNAES protocol and a commercial extraction robot and the average concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (log10 copies/μL) in duplicate RNAES extractions following ambient temperature storage for 0-, 1-, 3-, and 7-days post extraction.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (104.2KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (15.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES