Ani Stepanyan
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Ani Stepanyan has a total of 14 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Andranik Chavushyan
Institute of Molecular Biology NAS RA, Yerevan 0014, Armenia
1 shared publication - Ani Melkonyan
Laboratory of Human Genomics and Immunomics, Institute of Molecular Biology National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, 0014 Yerevan, Armenia
1 shared publication - Armine Ghazazyan
National Center of Disease Control and Prevention, Ministry of Health RA
1 shared publication - Arsen Arakelyan
Institute of Molecular Biology, National Academy of Science of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, 0014, Armenia
1 shared publication - Diana Avetyan
Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
1 shared publication - Gayane Gurgenovna Melik-Andreasyan
National Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Yerevan 0025, Armenia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
SARS-CoV-2 detection by extraction-free qRT-PCR for massive and rapid COVID-19 diagnosis during a pandemic
COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the healthcare and economy on a global scale. It is widely recognized that mass testing is an efficient way to contain the infection spread as well as the development of informed policies for disease management. However, the current COVID-19 worldwide infection rates increased demand in the rapid and reliable screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We compared the performance of qRT-PCR in direct heat-inactivated, heat-inactivated/pelleted samples against RNA in a group of 74 subjects (44 positive and 30 negative). In addition, we compared the sensitivity of heat-inactivated/pelleted in another group of 196 COVID-19 positive samples. Our study suggests that swab sample heat-inactivation and pelleting show higher accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection PCR assay compared to heat-inactivation only (89% vs 83% of the detection in RNA). The accuracy of detection using direct samples varied depending on the sample transport and storage media as well as the concentration of viral particles. Our study suggests that purified RNA provides more accurate results, however, direct qRT-PCR may help to significantly increase testing capacity. Switching to the direct sample testing is justified if the number of tests is doubled at least.
Open AccessSARS-CoV-2 detection by extraction-free qRT-PCR for massive and rapid COVID-19 diagnosis during a pandemic
COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted the healthcare and economy on a global scale. It is widely recognized that mass testing is an efficient way to contain the infection spread as well as the development of informed policies for disease management. However, the current COVID-19 worldwide infection rates increased demand in the rapid and reliable screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We compared the performance of qRT-PCR in direct heat-inactivated, heat-inactivated/pelleted samples against RNA in a group of 74 subjects (44 positive and 30 negative). In addition, we compared the sensitivity of heat-inactivated/pelleted in another group of 196 COVID-19 positive samples. Our study suggests that swab sample heat-inactivation and pelleting show higher accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection PCR assay compared to heat-inactivation only (89% vs 83% of the detection in RNA). The accuracy of detection using direct samples varied depending on the sample transport and storage media as well as the concentration of viral particles. Our study suggests that purified RNA provides more accurate results, however, direct qRT-PCR may help to significantly increase testing capacity. Switching to the direct sample testing is justified if the number of tests is doubled at least.