Abstract
We undertook this cross-sectional investigation to assess the time, manpower, and average run cost per sample using manual Qiamp Viral RNA micro kit (Qiagen) and automated kingfisher flex instrument extraction methods for SARS-Cov-2 identification.The study used 120 Viral Transport Media-collected nasopharyngeal/ oropharyngeal swabs.Magnetic bead-based RNA extraction was performed using the Thermo Fisher Scientific kingfisher flex instrument and manual Extraction was Silica membrane-based Qiagen spin column kits. The TaqPath™ COVID-19 Combo Kit from Thermo Fisher Scientific was used for detecting SARS-CoV-2 target genes.Human technique took 40 minutes longer than automation. It cost more to automate than to manually labor. These disparities in time, effort, and cost affect laboratory operations, offering pros and cons for each method. This suggests that positive or negative was consistent regardless of viral load or RNA concentration.The study found that automated RNA extraction yielded better results compared to manual extraction. The automated sample processing system saved time, people, and money. In resource-limited or low-throughput labs, manual extraction may be preferable. Manual methods are laborious, require more hands-on time, and risk cross-contamination and technical blunders.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.