Comparison of the characteristics of the SPA and the qPCR
| Factors | qPCR comparison to SPA |
|---|---|
| Time requirement | 2–3 days faster than SPA |
| Cost per sample | 40–50% less expensive than SPA |
| Equipment cost | $20–$50 k initial investment. SPA does not require specific equipment |
| Reproducibility | More reproducible than SPA |
| Accuracy | More accurate than SPA |
| Sensitivity | More sensitive than SPA |
| Material compatibility | Unaffected because the whole viral load is measured unlike SPA which is affected |
| Scalability | Hundreds of samples processed at a time compared to only a few for the SPA |
| Factors | qPCR comparison to SPA |
|---|---|
| Time requirement | 2–3 days faster than SPA |
| Cost per sample | 40–50% less expensive than SPA |
| Equipment cost | $20–$50 k initial investment. SPA does not require specific equipment |
| Reproducibility | More reproducible than SPA |
| Accuracy | More accurate than SPA |
| Sensitivity | More sensitive than SPA |
| Material compatibility | Unaffected because the whole viral load is measured unlike SPA which is affected |
| Scalability | Hundreds of samples processed at a time compared to only a few for the SPA |
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.