MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048946591 · doi:10.1101/2020.08.08.20170746

ApharSeq: An Extraction-free Early-Pooling Protocol for Massively Multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 Detection

2020· preprint· en· W3048946591 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alon Chappleboim, Daphna Joseph-Strauss, Ayelet Rahat, Israa Sharkia, Miriam Adam, Daniel Kitsberg, Gavriel Fialkoff, Matan Lotem, Omer Gershon, Anna K. Schmidtner, Esther Oiknine‐Djian, Agnes Klochendler, Ronen Sadeh, Yuval Dor, Dana G. Wolf, Naomi Habib, Nir Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli Foundation
KeywordsPoolingRNA extractionComputational biologyWorkflowMultiplexSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Computer scienceBiologyRNACoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BioinformaticsGeneArtificial intelligenceDatabaseMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a dire need for viral detection tests worldwide. Most current tests for SARS-CoV-2 are based on RNA extraction followed by quantitative reverse-transcription PCR assays. While automation and improved logistics increased the capacity of these tests, they cannot exceed the lower bound dictated by one extraction and one RT-PCR reaction per sample. Multiplexed next generation sequencing (NGS) assays provide a dramatic increase in throughput, and hold the promise of richer information including viral strains, host immune response, and multiple pathogens. Here, we establish a significant improvement of existing RNA-seq detection protocols. Our workflow, ApharSeq, includes a fast and cheap RNA capture step, that is coupled to barcoding of individual samples, followed by sample-pooling prior to the reverse transcription, PCR and massively parallel sequencing. Thus, only one non-enzymatic step is performed before pooling hundreds of barcoded samples for subsequent steps and further analysis. We characterize the quantitative aspects of the assay by applying ApharSeq to more than 500 clinical samples in a robotic workflow. The assay results are linear, and the empirical limit of detection is found to be Ct 33 (roughly 1000 copies/ml). A single ApharSeq test currently costs under 1.2$, and we estimate costs can further go down 3-10 fold. Similarly, we estimate a labor reduction of 10-100 fold, automated liquid handling of 5-10 fold, and reagent requirement reduction of 20-1000 fold compared to existing testing methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207