Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 virus in saliva using a guanidium based transport medium suitable for RT-PCR diagnostic assays.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Upper respiratory samples used to test for SARS-CoV-2 virus may be infectious and present a hazard during transport and testing. A buffer with the ability to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 at the time of sample collection could simplify and expand testing for COVID-19 to non-conventional settings.Methods
We evaluated a guanidium thiocyanate-based buffer, eNAT™ (Copan) as a possible transport and inactivation medium for downstream Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing to detect SARS-CoV-2. Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 in eNAT and in diluted saliva was studied at different incubation times. The stability of viral RNA in eNAT was also evaluated for up to 7 days at room temperature (28°C), refrigerated conditions (4°C) and at 35°C.Results
SARS-COV-2 virus spiked directly in eNAT could be inactivated at >5.6 log10 PFU/ml within a minute of incubation. When saliva was diluted 1:1 in eNAT, no cytopathic effect (CPE) on VeroE6 cells was observed, although SARS-CoV-2 RNA could be detected even after 30 min incubation and after two cell culture passages. A 1:2 (saliva:eNAT) dilution abrogated both CPE and detectable viral RNA after as little as 5 min incubation in eNAT. SARS-CoV-2 RNA from virus spiked at 5X the limit of detection remained positive up to 7 days of incubation in all tested conditions.Conclusion
eNAT and similar guanidinium thiocyanate-based media may be of value for transport, stabilization, and processing of clinical samples for RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 detection.
SUBMITTER: Banik S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8195355 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) is a fast and convenient method to amplify and identify the transcripts of a targeted pathogen. We combined bioinformatic and experimental analyses to improve the RT-LAMP assay performance for COVID-19 diagnosis. First, we developed an improved algorithm to design LAMP primers targeting the nucleocapsid (N), membrane (M), and spike (S) genes of SARS-CoV-2. Next, we rigorously validated these new assays for their efficacy and specificity. Further, we demonstrated that multiplexed RT-LAMP assays could directly detect as low as a few copies of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva, without the need of RNA isolation. Importantly, further testing using saliva samples from COVID-19 patients indicated that the new RT-LAMP assays were in total agreement in sensitivity and specificity with standard RT-qPCR. In summary, our new LAMP primer design algorithm along with the validated assays provide a fast and reliable method for the diagnosis of COVID-19 cases.
2021-04-22 | GSE173086 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 has killed millions of people worldwide. The current crisis has created an unprecedented demand for rapid test of SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsReverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) is a fast and convenient method to amplify and identify the transcripts of a targeted pathogen. However, the sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP were generally regarded as inferior when compared with the gold standard RT-qPCR. To address this issue, we combined bioinformatic and experimental analyses to improve the assay performance for COVID-19 diagnosis.FindingsFirst, by experimental screening as well as high-throughput sequencing studies, we discovered new primer features that impacted LAMP sensitivity and specificity. These features were then used to build an improved bioinformatics algorithm to design LAMP primers targeting SARS-CoV-2. We further rigorously validated these new assays for their efficacy and specificity. We demonstrated that multiplexed RT-LAMP assay could directly detect as low as 1.5 copies/µL of SARS-CoV-2 particles in saliva, without the need of RNA isolation. We further tested this ultra-sensitive and specific RT-LAMP assay using saliva samples from COVID-19 patients. Clinical validation results indicated that the new RT-LAMP assay was comparable to standard RT-qPCR in overall assay sensitivity and specificity.InterpretationIn summary, our new LAMP primer design algorithm along with the validated assays provide a fast and reliable method for the diagnosis of COVID-19 cases.FundingNational Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC8674011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.
| S-EPMC10269602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Saliva is an attractive sample for coronavirus disease 2019 testing due its ease of collection and amenability to detect viral RNA with minimal processing. Using a direct-to-RT-PCR method with saliva self-collected from confirmed COVID-19 positive volunteers, we observed 32% false negative results. Confirmed negative and healthy volunteer samples spiked with 106 genome copies/mL of heat-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 showed false negative results of 10% and 13%, respectively. Additional sample heating or dilution of the false negative samples conferred only modest improvements. These results highlight the potential to significantly underdiagnose COVID-19 infections when testing directly from minimally processed heterogeneous saliva samples.
| S-EPMC8857222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose.MethodsTen patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient.ResultsFifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%.ConclusionsNS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.
| S-EPMC8006266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The gold standard method in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the detection of viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal sample by RT-PCR. Recently, saliva samples have been suggested as an alternative sample. In the present study, we aimed to compare RT-PCR results in nasopharyngeal, oro-nasopharyngeal and saliva samples of COVID-19 patients. 98 of 200 patients were positive in RT-PCR analysis performed before the hospitalization. On day 0, at least one sample was positive in 67 % of 98 patients. The positivity rate was 83 % for both oro-nasopharyngeal and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 63 % for saliva samples (p?<?0.001). On day 5, RT-PCR was performed in 59 patients, 34 % had at least one positive result. The positivity rate was 55 % for both saliva and nasopharyngeal samples, while it was 60 % for oro-nasopharyngeal samples. Our study shows that the sampling saliva does not increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR tests at the early stages of infection. However, on the 5th day, viral RNA detection rates in saliva were similar to nasopharyngeal and oro-nasopharyngeal samples. In conclusion, we suggest that, in patients receiving treatment, RT-PCR in saliva, in addition to the standard samples, is important to determine the isolation period and control transmission.
| S-EPMC7833528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDistinctive genotypes of SARS-CoV-2 have emerged that are or may be associated with increased transmission, pathogenicity, and/or antibody escape. In many countries, clinical and diagnostic laboratories are under mandate to identify and report these so-called variants of concern (VOC).ObjectivesWe used an external quality assessment scheme to determine the scope, accuracy, and reliability of laboratories using various molecular diagnostic assays to identify current VOC (03 March 2021).Study designParticipant laboratories were sent the same five patient-derived samples and were asked to provide their variant detection methods, variant detection results and interpretation of results.ResultsTwenty-five laboratories reported a range of RT-qPCR-based assays to identify specific variations in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that are characteristic of three VOC lineages. Laboratories that detected VOC-associated nucleotide mutations at four specific sites had the highest ratio of correct classification. Low template copy number and additional variation in target regions resulted in loss of confidence and accuracy in sample classification.ConclusionsMelting-curve-based assays to identify genomic variants are less time-consuming and require less bioinformatic analysis compared to partial or whole genome sequencing. However, our results suggest that correct classification of a given genotype/lineage (e.g., a VOC) relies on the ability to detect more than one variant site, adequate template in the sample (i.e., relatively high viral load/copy number) and results may be unclear in certain samples with additional genetic variations. These initial results suggest that some diagnostic laboratories may require additional training to interpret and report complex genetic information about a dynamic emerging virus.
| S-EPMC8262392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe recent emergence of new SARS CoV-2 variants (variants of concern, VOC) that spread rapidly and may lead to immune escape has emphasized the urgent need to monitor and control their spread.MethodsWe analyzed 2018 SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens collected between February 9 and March 22, 2021 using the Thermofisher® TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR kit (TaqPath) and the ID solutions® ID™ SARS-CoV-2/UK/SA Variant Triplex RT-PCR (ID triplex) assay to screen for VOCs.ResultsThe ID triplex assay identified 62.8% of them as VOCs: 61.8% B.1.1.7 and 0.9% B.1.351/P.1. The agreement between the ID triplex results for B.1.1.7 and the TaqPath S gene target failure (SGTF)/ S gene target late detection (SGTL) profile for this variant agreed very well (k = 0.86). A low virus load was the main cause of discrepancies. Sequencing discordant results with both assays indicated that the TaqPath assay detected the B.1.1.7 lineage slightly better. Both assays suggested that the virus loads of B.1.1.7 variants were significantly higher than those of non-B.1.1.7 strains. Only 10/20 B1.351/P.1 strains detected with the ID triplex assay were confirmed by sequencing.ConclusionsWe conclude that the SGTF/SGTL profiles identified using the TaqPath assay and ID triplex results are suitable for detecting the B.1.1.7 lineage. The ID triplex assay, which rapidly determines all three current VOCs simultaneously, could be a valuable tool for limiting virus spread by supporting contact-tracing and isolation.
| S-EPMC8411575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections continue, there is a substantial need for cost-effective and large-scale testing that utilizes specimens that can be readily collected from both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in various community settings. Although multiple diagnostic methods utilize nasopharyngeal specimens, saliva specimens represent an attractive alternative as they can rapidly and safely be collected from different populations. While saliva has been described as an acceptable clinical matrix for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, evaluations of analytic performance across platforms for this specimen type are limited. Here, we used a novel sensitive RT-PCR/MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based assay (Agena MassARRAY®) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens. The platform demonstrated high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity when compared to matched patient upper respiratory specimens. We also evaluated the analytical sensitivity of the platform and determined the limit of detection of the assay to be 1562.5 copies/ml. Furthermore, across the five individual target components of this assay, there was a range in analytic sensitivities for each target with the N2 target being the most sensitive. Overall, this system also demonstrated comparable performance when compared to the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva by the cobas® 6800/8800 SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR Test (Roche). Together, we demonstrate that saliva represents an appropriate matrix for SARS-CoV-2 detection on the novel Agena system as well as on a conventional real-time RT-PCR assay. We conclude that the MassARRAY® system is a sensitive and reliable platform for SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva, offering scalable throughput in a large variety of clinical laboratory settings.
| S-EPMC8242556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is an ongoing public health pandemic regardless of the countless efforts made by various actors. Quality diagnostic tests are important for early detection and control. Notably, several commercially available one step RT-PCR based assays have been recommended by the WHO. Yet, their analytic and diagnostic performances have not been well documented in resource-limited settings. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of three commercially available one step reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays in Ethiopia in clinical setting.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June, 2021 on 279 respiratory swabs originating from community surveillance, contact cases and suspect cases. RNA was extracted using manual extraction method. Master-mix preparation, amplification and result interpretation was done as per the respective manufacturer. Agreements between RT-PCRs were analyzed using kappa values. Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) were fitted to obtain reliable estimates of diagnostic sensitivities, specificities of the three assays and prevalence in the absence of a true gold standard.ResultsAmong the 279 respiratory samples, 50(18%), 59(21.2%), and 69(24.7%) were tested positive by TIB, Da An, and BGI assays, respectively. Moderate to substantial level of agreement was reported among the three assays with kappa value between 0 .55 and 0.72. Based on the BLCM relatively high specificities (95% CI) of 0.991(0.973-1.000), 0.961(0.930-0.991) and 0.916(0.875-0.952) and considerably lower sensitivities with 0.813(0.658-0.938), 0.836(0.712-0.940) and 0.810(0.687-0.920) for TIB MOLBIOL, Da An and BGI respectively were found.ConclusionsWhile all the three RT-PCR assays displayed comparable sensitivities, the specificities of TIB MOLBIOL and Da An were considerably higher than BGI. These results help adjust the apparent prevalence determined by the three RT-PCRs and thus support public health decisions in resource limited settings and consider alternatives as per their prioritization matrix.
| S-EPMC8775315 | biostudies-literature