CORRECTION article

Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 08 December 2021

Sec. Clinical and Diagnostic Microbiology and Immunology

Volume 11 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.813442

Corrigendum: Evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 Inactivation Efficacy Associated With Buffers From Three Kits Used on High-Throughput RNA Extraction Platforms

  • CBR Division, Dstl Porton Down, Salisbury, United Kingdom

Article metrics

View details

1,6k

Views

524

Downloads

In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 1: Protocols tested for assessing inactivation using lysis buffers as published. During the publication process the components for each of the three kits tested in this study (as stated in the ‘Reagents’ and ‘Active virucidal components’ columns), were unclearly formatted. The corrected Table 1: Protocols tested for assessing inactivation using lysis buffers appears below.

Table 1

Manufacturer, RNA extraction kit, PlatformReagents (volume/sample)Active virucidal components*Reagent: Sample ratio
Qiagen,
QIAamp 96 Virus QIAcube HT Kit
(Cat #: 57731),
Qiagen Qiacube HT.
(Referred to here as Qiagen protocol)
ACL buffer (190 µl)GITC 30 - <50%1.6: 1
ATL buffer (100 µl)1 - <3% SDS
Proteinase K (20 µl)
Carrier RNA (5 µl)
MS2 (10 µl)
ThermoFisher,
MagMax Pathogen RNA/DNA kit
(Cat #: 4462359),
Kingfisher Flex.
(Referred to here as MagMax Protocol 1)
Lysis binding buffer (350 µl)GITC 55-80% <0.001% Acrylamide
Zwittergent
3.8: 1
Isopropanol (300 µl)100% 2-propanol
Carrier RNA (2 µl)
Water (100 µl)
MS2 (10 µl)
ThermoFisher,
MagMax viral/pathogen nucleic acid isolation kit
(Cat #: A48310),
Kingfisher Flex.
(Referred to here as MagMax Protocol 2)
Lysis binding buffer (265 µl)GITC 55-80%
<0.001% Acrylamide
Zwittergent
1.4: 1
Proteinase K (5 µl)
Water (Magnetic beads) (10 µl)
MS2 (10 µl)

Protocols tested for assessing inactivation using lysis buffers.

*As identified directly from components, manufacturer information, or inferred from the associated MSDS.

Water was used to replace the magnetic beads as the washing steps described below would not remove the beads and the beads interfered the read-out of the TCID-50 assay.

GITC, Guanidinium thiocyanate; SDS, Sodium dodecyl sulphate.

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Summary

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2, high throughput, PCR, biosafety, laboratory-acquired infection, clinical diagnosis

Citation

Thom RE, Eastaugh LS, O’Brien LM, Ulaeto DO, Findlay JS, Smither SJ, Phelps AL, Stapleton HL, Hamblin KA and Weller SA (2021) Corrigendum: Evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 Inactivation Efficacy Associated With Buffers From Three Kits Used on High-Throughput RNA Extraction Platforms. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 11:813442. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.813442

Received

11 November 2021

Accepted

23 November 2021

Published

08 December 2021

Volume

11 - 2021

Edited and reviewed by

Max Maurin, Université Grenoble Alpes, France

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Simon A. Weller,

This article was submitted to Clinical Microbiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics