Author Correction: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs using MALDI-MS.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nachtigall FM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7498194 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT–PCR and other advanced methods can achieve high accuracy. However, their application is limited in countries that lack sufficient resources to handle large-scale testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we describe a method to detect SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS) and machine learning analysis. This approach uses equipment and expertise commonly found in clinical laboratories in developing countries. We obtained mass spectra from a total of 362 samples (211 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 151 negative by RT–PCR) without prior sample preparation from three different laboratories. We tested two feature selection methods and six machine learning approaches to identify the top performing analysis approaches and determine the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 detection. The support vector machine model provided the highest accuracy (93.9%), with 7% false positives and 5% false negatives. Our results suggest that MALDI-MS and machine learning analysis can be used to reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swab samples.
2020-09-11 | PXD021388 | Pride
Project description:Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR and other advanced methods can achieve high accuracy. However, their application is limited in countries that lack sufficient resources to handle large-scale testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we describe a method to detect SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS) and machine learning analysis. This approach uses equipment and expertise commonly found in clinical laboratories in developing countries. We obtained mass spectra from a total of 362 samples (211 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 151 negative by RT-PCR) without prior sample preparation from three different laboratories. We tested two feature selection methods and six machine learning approaches to identify the top performing analysis approaches and determine the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 detection. The support vector machine model provided the highest accuracy (93.9%), with 7% false positives and 5% false negatives. Our results suggest that MALDI-MS and machine learning analysis can be used to reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swab samples.
| MSV000086175 | MassIVE
Project description:Mass testing is fundamental to face the pandemic caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 discovered at the end of 2019. To this aim, it is necessary to establish reliable, fast, and cheap tools to detect viral particles in biological material so to identify the people capable of spreading the infection. We demonstrate that a colorimetric biosensor based on gold nanoparticle (AuNP) interaction induced by SARS-CoV-2 lends itself as an outstanding tool for detecting viral particles in nasal and throat swabs. The extinction spectrum of a colloidal solution of multiple viral-target gold nanoparticles-AuNPs functionalized with antibodies targeting three surface proteins of SARS-CoV-2 (spike, envelope, and membrane)-is red-shifted in few minutes when mixed with a solution containing the viral particle. The optical density of the mixed solution measured at 560 nm was compared to the threshold cycle (Ct) of a real-time PCR (gold standard for detecting the presence of viruses) finding that the colorimetric method is able to detect very low viral load with a detection limit approaching that of the real-time PCR. Since the method is sensitive to the infecting viral particle rather than to its RNA, the achievements reported here open a new perspective not only in the context of the current and possible future pandemics, but also in microbiology, as the biosensor proves itself to be a powerful though simple tool for measuring the viral particle concentration.
| S-EPMC7534800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been spreading worldwide for more than a year and has undergone several mutations and evolutions. Due to the lack of effective therapeutics and long-active vaccines, accurate and large-scale screening and early diagnosis of infected individuals are crucial to control the pandemic. Nevertheless, the current widely used RT-qPCR-based methods suffer from complicated temperature control, long processing time and the risk of false-negative results. Herein, we present a three-way junction induced exponential rolling circle amplification (3WJ-eRCA) combined MALDI-TOF MS assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The assay can detect simultaneously the target nucleocapsid (N) and open reading frame 1 ab (orf1ab) genes of SARS-CoV-2 in a single test within 30 min, with an isothermal process (55 °C). High specificity to discriminate SARS-CoV-2 from other coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and bat SARS-like coronavirus (bat-SL-CoVZC45), was observed. We have further used the method to detect pseudovirus of SARS-CoV-2 in various matrices, e.g. water, saliva and urine. The results demonstrated a great potential of the method for large scale screening of COVID-19, which is an important part of the pandemic control.
| S-EPMC8821030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing in specimens collected from the anterior nasal vestibules of COVID-19 patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed on 30 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from March 14, 2020 to March 21, 2020. Paired specimens were collected from both the anterior nasal vestibule and the oropharynx from all patients. All specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays.ResultsOf the 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 17 patients (56.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 when oropharyngeal specimens were used, while 20 patients (66.7%) tested positive when nasal swab specimens were used. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the two methods.ConclusionsRespiratory swabs collected from the nasal vestibule offer a less invasive alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for specimen collection in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and have adequate sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8293915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the third highly pathogenic human coronavirus and is rapidly transmitted by infected individuals regardless of their symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the dearth of skilled healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect samples for early diagnosis, self-collection emerged as a viable alternative. To evaluate the reliability of self-collection, we compared the virus detection rate using 3990 self-collected swabs and HCW-collected swabs, procured from the same individuals and collected immediately after the self-collection. The results of multiplex reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed that the viral load in the HCW-collected swabs was marginally (18.4-28.8 times) higher than that in self-collected swabs. Self-collection showed no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity from HCW-collection (κ = 0.87, McNemar's test; p = 0.19), indicating a comparable performance. These findings suggest that self-collected swabs are acceptable substitutes for HCW-collected swabs, and that their use improved the specimen screening efficiency and reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC9600397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC8091856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNasal swabs and saliva samples are being considered alternatives to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, few studies have compared the usefulness of nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. We compared the positivity rates and concentrations of viruses detected in nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time PCR tests for respiratory viruses.MethodsIn total, 236 samples (48 five-rub and 10 10-rub nasal swabs, 96 NPSs collected using two different products, 48 saliva swabs, and 34 undiluted saliva samples) from 48 patients (34 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 14 with other respiratory virus infections) and 40 samples from eight healthy controls were obtained. The PCR positivity and Ct values were compared using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR.ResultsNPSs showed the lowest Ct values (indicating the highest virus concentrations); however, nasal and saliva samples yielded positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. The median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 E gene PCR using nasal swab samples collected with 10 rubs was significantly different from that obtained using nasal swabs collected with five rubs (Ct=24.3 vs. 28.9; P=0.002), but not from that obtained using NPSs.ConclusionsOur results confirm that the NPS is the best sample type for detecting respiratory viruses, but nasal swabs and saliva samples can be alternatives to NPSs. Vigorously and sufficiently rubbed nasal swabs can provide SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those obtained with NPSs.
| S-EPMC10151282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the setting of supply chain shortages of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, we sought to compare the ability of nasopharyngeal, midturbinate nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs (NPS, MTS, and OPS) to detect SARS-CoV-2. Community and hospitalized participants post-COVID-19 diagnosis were swabbed and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Thirty-six participants had all 3 swabs collected. Using detection at any site as the standard, the percent positive agreements were 90% (95% CI 74.4-96.5), 80% (70.3-94.7) and 87% (62.7-90.5) for NPS, MTS, and OPS, respectively. Subsequently, 43 participants had OPS and NPS collected. Thirty-nine were positive with a percent positive agreement of 82.1% (95% CI 67.3-91.0) for OPS and 87.2% (73.3-94.4) for NPS. Combining all 79 patients tested, 67 were positive at either site with a positive agreement was 86.5% (76.4-92.7) for OPS and 91.1% (81.8-95.8) for NPS. OPS are an acceptable alternative to NPS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections.
| S-EPMC8675123 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8444446 | biostudies-literature