Mag-Bind Viral RNA Xpress Kit
Viral RNA Extraction Kit
Mag-Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit follows a magnetic bead-based approach for the rapid and reliable isolation of viral RNA from nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens that are dry or in viral transport media (VTM). The extraction methodology is easily adaptable to various automated systems and can also be scaled up or down depending on the amount of starting sample amount used. The kit utilizes the proven Mag-Bind® technology that enables the purification of high-quality nucleic acids that are free of proteins, nucleases, and other impurities. The purified nucleic acids are ready for direct use in downstream applications such as qPCR, RT-qPCR, and more.
Viral RNA Extractions Shipped
Proud to have shipped our Mag-Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit and the Mag-Bind® Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit which have been used in millions of viral RNA extractions globally.
Benefits over Mag-Bind® Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit
- Improved downstream performance
- Faster protocol
- No Proteinase K step
- Smaller packaging with double the number of preps for reduced shipping costs
- 10% savings on cost per prep
Protocols are available for the following automated platforms:
- Hamilton Microlab® STAR
- Hamilton Microlab® MagEx STARlet
- Hamilton Microlab® NIMBUS
- Hamilton Microlab VANTAGE®
- KingFisher™, BioSprint®, and MagMAX® 96
Contact an automation support specialist for Omega Bio-tek’s *NEW* 15 minute fast protocols
- Tecan DreamPrep™ NAP
- Adaptable to other liquid handling platforms
Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Extraction
Omega Bio-tek is assisting scientists, researchers, and healthcare workers around the globe in accelerating the screening and detection of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19. We are supporting several Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) by providing high-throughput, automated viral nucleic acid extraction methodologies. To meet the exceptional and immediate need for supplies, Omega Bio-tek created a more robust viral RNA extraction kit, Mag-Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit, and has the capacity to support 6 million viral RNA extractions per month.
- Optimal formulation to extract viral RNA from NP swabs, aspirates and BAL samples
- Adaptable to other liquid handling platforms
- Dedicated technical and application support to expedite setup and validation time.
- No backorder
- Same or next-day shipping in the US and EU
In the News
For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
|Starting Amount||50 µL - 200 µL|
|Starting Material||NP swabs in UTM/VTM as well as dry|
|Elution Volume||50-100 µL|
|Processing Mode||Automated, Manual|
|Throughput||8 - 96|
Protocol and Resources
Product Documentation & Literature
Detection of Synthetic SARS-CoV-2 virus control following RT-qPCR
Figure 1. 1×105 copies of synthetic SARS-CoV-2 were spiked into a 200 μL sample containing 2000 HEK293 cells. Viral nucleic acids were extracted following the recommended protocol from Mag-Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit (M6219). 4 and 8 μL of template was used in a 20 μL SYBR Greenlabeled RT-qPCR reaction. The average Ct values obtained are shown on the left. The Ct difference between the two template 30.89 amounts is ~1 indicating no qPCR inhibition.
Detection of Influenza B virus following RT-qPCR: Mag-Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit vs Mag-Bind® Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit
Figure 2. 50 µL of Influenza B virus control was spiked into a 200 μL sample containing 2000 HEK293 cells. Viral nucleic acids were extracted following the recommended protocols from Mag- Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit (M6219) and Mag-Bind® Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (M6246). 4 and 8 μL of template was used in a 20 μL SYBR Green-labeled RT-qPCR reaction. The average Ct values obtained are shown left. The Ct difference between the two template amounts used is ~1 indicating no qPCR inhibition. The Ct values for the Mag-Bind® Viral RNA Xpress Kit (M6219) were on an average ~0.5 Ct lower than Mag-Bind® Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (M6246) indicating improved performance.
- Eberle, Ute, et al. “Virological COVID-19 Surveillance in Bavaria, Germany Suggests No SARS-CoV-2 Spread prior to the First German Case in January 2020.” Infection, Apr. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01611-y.
- Kandel, Christopher, et al. “Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Saliva as Compared to Nasopharyngeal Swabs in Outpatients.” Viruses, vol. 12, no. 11, Nov. 2020, p. 1314, https://doi.org/10.3390/v12111314.
- Kandel, Christopher E., et al. “Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Outpatients: A Multicenter Comparison of Self-Collected Saline Gargle, Oral Swab, and Combined Oral–Anterior Nasal Swab to a Provider Collected Nasopharyngeal Swab.” Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, Jan. 2021, pp. 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2021.2.
- Mu, Hsuan-Yu, et al. “Microfluidic-Based Approaches for COVID-19 Diagnosis.” Biomicrofluidics, vol. 14, no. 6, Nov. 2020, p. 061504, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0031406.
- Pater, Adrian A., et al. “Emergence and Evolution of a Prevalent New SARS-CoV-2 Variant in the United States.” BioRxiv, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.11.426287.
- Spada, Eva, et al. “A Pre- and during Pandemic Survey of Sars-Cov-2 Infection in Stray Colony and Shelter Cats from a High Endemic Area of Northern Italy.” Viruses, vol. 13, no. 4, Apr. 2021, p. 618, https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040618.