Correlation of SARS-CoV-2 Subgenomic RNA with Antigen Detection in Nasal Midturbinate Swab Specimens.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Immergluck K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8544990 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Public health experts emphasize the need for quick, point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 detection as an effective strategy for controlling virus spread. To this end, many "antigen" detection devices were developed and commercialized. These devices are mostly based on detecting SARS-CoV-2's nucleocapsid protein. Recently, alerts issued by both the FDA and the CDC raised concerns regarding the devices' tendency to exhibit false positive results. In this work, we developed a novel alternative spike-based antigen assay, comprising four high-affinity, specific monoclonal antibodies, directed against different epitopes on the spike's S1 subunit. The assay's performance was evaluated for COVID-19 detection from nasopharyngeal swabs, compared to an in-house nucleocapsid-based assay, composed of novel antibodies directed against the nucleocapsid. Detection of COVID-19 was carried out in a cohort of 284 qRT-PCR positive and negative nasopharyngeal swab samples. The time resolved fluorescence (TRF) ELISA spike assay displayed very high specificity (99%) accompanied with a somewhat lower sensitivity (66% for Ct < 25), compared to the nucleocapsid ELISA assay which was more sensitive (85% for Ct < 25) while less specific (87% specificity). Despite being outperformed by qRT-PCR, we suggest that there is room for such tests in the clinical setting, as cheap and rapid pre-screening tools. Our results further suggest that when applying antigen detection, one must consider its intended application (sensitivity vs specificity), taking into consideration that the nucleocapsid might not be the optimal target. In this regard, we propose that a combination of both antigens might contribute to the validity of the results. Schematic representation of sample collection and analysis. The figure was created using BioRender.com.
| S-EPMC7993413 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7484747 | 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:The rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is an essential aspect in the detection and control of the spread of COVID-19. We evaluated the accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) using samples from the nasal cavity and nasopharynx based on sample collection timing and viral load. We enrolled 175 patients, of which 71 patients and 104 patients had tested positive and negative, respectively, based on real time-PCR. Nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal swab samples were tested using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag tests (Q Ag, SD Biosensor, Korea). The sensitivity of the Q Ag test was 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.8−87.2%) for the nasal cavity and 81.7% (95% [CI, 72.7−90.7%) for the nasopharyngeal specimens. The RAT results showed a substantial agreement between the nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal specimens (Cohen’s kappa index = 0.78). The sensitivity of the RAT for nasal cavity specimens exceeded 89% for <5 days after symptom onset (DSO) and 86% for Ct of E and RdRp < 25. The Q Ag test performed fairly well, especially in the early DSO when a high viral load was present, and the nasal cavity swab can be considered an alternative site for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8947492 | 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:IntroductionRapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are convenient tools for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in clinics, and testing using saliva samples could decrease the risk of infection during sample collection. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD for testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with the RT-PCR tests and viral culture for detecting viable virus.MethodsOne hundred seventeen nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 73 saliva samples with positive results on RT-PCR were used. Residual samples were assayed using a commercially available RAD test immediately, and its positivity was determined at various time points during the clinical course. The concordance between 54 nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples that were collected simultaneously was determined. Viral culture was performed on 117 samples and compared with the results of the RAD test.ResultsThe positive rate of RAD test using saliva samples was low throughout the clinical course. Poor concordance was observed between nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples (75.9%, kappa coefficient 0.310). However, a substantially high concordance between the RAD test and viral culture was observed in both nasopharyngeal swab specimens (86.8%, kappa coefficient 0.680) and saliva samples (95.1%, kappa coefficient 0.643).ConclusionsThe sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD test was insufficient, particularly for saliva samples. However, a substantially high concordance with viral culture suggests its potential utility as an auxiliary test for estimating SARS-CoV-2 viability.
| S-EPMC8052479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Saliva is an attractive sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, contradictory reports exist concerning the sensitivity of saliva versus nasal swabs. We followed close contacts of COVID-19 cases for up to 14 days from the last exposure and collected self-reported symptoms, midturbinate swabs (MTS), and saliva every 2 or 3 days. Ct values, viral load, and frequency of viral detection by MTS and saliva were compared. Fifty-eight contacts provided 200 saliva-MTS pairs, and 14 contacts (13 with symptoms) had one or more positive samples. Saliva and MTS had similar rates of viral detection (P = 0.78) and substantial agreement (κ = 0.83). However, sensitivity varied significantly with time since symptom onset. Early on (days -3 to 2), saliva had 12 times (95% CI: 1.2, 130) greater likelihood of viral detection and 3.2 times (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) higher RNA copy numbers compared to MTS. After day 2 of symptoms, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater sensitivity using MTS. Saliva and MTS demonstrated high agreement making saliva a suitable alternative to MTS for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Saliva was more sensitive early in the infection when the transmission was most likely to occur, suggesting that it may be a superior and cost-effective screening tool for COVID-19. IMPORTANCE The findings of this manuscript are increasingly important with new variants that appear to have shorter incubation periods emerging, which may be more prone to detection in saliva before detection in nasal swabs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide the science to support the use of a detection method that is highly sensitive and widely acceptable to the public to improve screening rates and early detection. The manuscript presents the first evidence that saliva-based RT-PCR is more sensitive than MTS-based RT-PCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2 during the presymptomatic period - the critical period for unwitting onward transmission. Considering other advantages of saliva samples, including the lower cost, greater acceptability within the general population, and less risk to health care workers, our findings further supported the use of saliva to identify presymptomatic infection and prevent transmission of the virus.
| S-EPMC9045394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT.MethodsPubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis.ResultsThe pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset.ConclusionNasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.
| S-EPMC9909360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent responsible for the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) studies have been valuable for studying SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, but the performance of these methods to detect and quantify viral RNAs has not been evaluated. Here we develop an analysis pipeline, single cell coronavirus sequencing (scCoVseq), to quantify unambiguous reads derived from coronavirus genomic (gRNA) and subgenomic mRNAs (sgmRNAs). We use this method to compare the ability of scRNAseq methods developed by 10X Genomics to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNAs, with particular focus on sgmRNAs. We find that while sequencing libraries from 10X Genomics Chromium Next Gem Single Cell V(D)J (10X 5') contain more unambiguous reads derived from sgmRNAs due to the presence of reads spanning junctions between the viral 5' leader and sgmRNA open reading frames. We demonstrate that by extending read 1 (R1) of 10X 5' leaders we can further increase the number of unambiguous reads from SARS-CoV-2 sgmRNA resulting in more UMIs per sgmRNA per cell. Using this method, which we call 10X 5' Extended R1, we are able quantify viral sgmRNA production per cell, which we believe will improve understanding regarding the dynamics of coronavirus RNA biogenesis over time and across cell types and viruses. We believe this will improve our understanding of coronavirus pathogenesis.
2023-07-30 | GSE189900 | GEO
Project description:The urgent need for large-scale diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has prompted pursuit of sample-collection methods of sufficient sensitivity to replace sampling of the nasopharynx (NP). Among these alternatives is collection of nasal-swab samples, which can be performed by the patient, avoiding the need for healthcare personnel and personal protective equipment. Previous studies have reached opposing conclusions regarding whether nasal sampling is concordant or discordant with NP. To resolve this disagreement, we compared nasal and NP specimens collected by healthcare workers in a cohort consisting of individuals clinically suspected of COVID-19 and outpatients known to be SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive undergoing follow-up. We investigated three different transport conditions, including traditional viral transport media (VTM) and dry swabs, for each of two different nasal-swab collection protocols on a total of 308 study participants, and compared categorical results and Ct values to those from standard NP swabs collected at the same time from the same patients. All testing was performed by RT-PCR on the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 RealTime EUA (limit of detection [LoD], 100 copies viral genomic RNA/mL transport medium). We found high concordance (Cohen's kappa >0.8) only for patients with viral loads above 1,000 copies/mL. Those with viral loads below 1,000 copies/mL, the majority in our cohort, exhibited low concordance (Cohen's kappa = 0.49); most of these would have been missed by nasal testing alone. Previous reports of high concordance may have resulted from use of assays with higher LoD (?1,000 copies/mL). These findings counsel caution in use of nasal testing in healthcare settings and contact-tracing efforts, as opposed to screening of asymptomatic, low-prevalence, low-risk populations. Nasal testing is an adjunct, not a replacement, for NP.
| S-EPMC7310639 | biostudies-literature