Analysis of the initial lot of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel
Open accessAbstract
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed, manufactured, and distributed the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The diagnostic panel targeted three viral nucleocapsid gene loci (N1, N2, and N3 primers and probes) to maximize sensitivity and to provide redundancy for virus detection if mutations occurred. After the first distribution of the diagnostic panel, state public health laboratories reported fluorescent signal in the absence of viral template (false-positive reactivity) for the N3 component and to a lesser extent for N1. This report describes the findings of an internal investigation conducted by the CDC to identify the cause(s) of the N1 and N3 false-positive reactivity. For N1, results demonstrate that contamination with a synthetic template, that occurred while the “bulk” manufactured materials were located in a research lab for quality assessment, was the cause of false reactivity in the first lot. Base pairing between the 3’ end of the N3 probe and the 3’ end of the N3 reverse primer led to amplification of duplex and larger molecules resulting in false reactivity in the N3 assay component. We conclude that flaws in both assay design and handling of the “bulk” material, caused the problems with the first lot of the 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. In addition, within this study, we found that the age of the examined diagnostic panel reagents increases the frequency of false positive results for N3. We discuss these findings in the context of improvements to quality control, quality assurance, and assay validation practices that have since been improved at the CDC.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the United States, the initial test kits provided by the US CDC were faulty.
“In the United States, the initial test kits provided by the US CDC were faulty”
From The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as [158]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic
Sachs, J. D., Karim, S. S. A., Aknin, L., Allen, J., Brosbøl, K., Colombo, F., Barron, G. C., Espinosa, M. F., Gaspar, V., Gaviria, A., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01585-9 · Cited by 842 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lee, J. S., Goldstein, J. M., Moon, J. L., Herzegh, O., Bagarozzi, D. A., Oberste, M. S., Hughes, H., Bedi, K., Gerard, D., Cameron, B., Benton, C., Chida, A., Ahmad, A., Petway, D. J., Tang, X., Sulaiman, N., Teklu, D., Batra, D., Howard, D., Sheth, M., Kuhnert, W., Bialek, S. R., Hutson, C. L., Pohl, J., & Carroll, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carroll, Darin S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2021-12-15
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e0260487
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8673615
- OpenAlex
- W4200160422
- Cited by
- 110
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 24
- FWCI
- 6.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, false positives, N gene, reagent contamination, quality control, quality assurance, assay validation
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S., False Positive Reactions, Humans, RNA, Viral, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, DNA Primers, Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review