A deletion in the N gene of SARS-CoV-2 may reduce test sensitivity for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8715644 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, simple, rapid, point-of-care tests not requiring trained personnel for primary care testing are essential. Saliva-based antigen rapid tests (ARTs) can fulfil this need, but these tests require overnight-fasted samples; without which independent studies have demonstrated sensitivities of only 11.7 to 23.1%. Herein, we report an Amplified Parallel ART (AP-ART) with sensitivity above 90%, even with non-fasted samples. The virus was captured multimodally, using both anti-spike protein antibodies and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein. It also featured two parallel flow channels. The first contained spike protein binding gold nanoparticles which produced a visible red line upon encountering the virus. The second contained signal amplifying nanoparticles that complex with the former and amplify the signal without any linker. Compared to existing dual gold amplification techniques, a limit of detection of one order of magnitude lower was achieved (0.0064 ng·mL-1). AP-ART performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva of COVID-19 patients was investigated using a case-control study (139 participants enrolled and 162 saliva samples tested). Unlike commercially available ARTs, the sensitivity of AP-ART was maintained even when non-fasting saliva was used. Compared to the gold standard reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing on nasopharyngeal samples, non-fasting saliva tested on AP-ART showed a sensitivity of 97.0% (95% CI: 84.7-99.8); without amplification, the sensitivity was 72.7% (95% CI: 83.7-94.8). Thus, AP-ART has the potential to be developed for point-of-care testing, which may be particularly important in resource-limited settings, and for early diagnosis to initiate newly approved therapies to reduce COVID-19 severity.
| S-EPMC8646336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The early detection and differential diagnosis of respiratory infections increase the chances for successful control of COVID-19 disease. The nucleic acid RT-PCR test is regarded as the current standard for molecular diagnosis. However, the maximal specificity confirmation target ORF1ab gene is considered to be less sensitive than other targets in clinical application. In addition, recent evidence indicated that the initial missed diagnosis of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 and discharged patients with "re-examination positive" might be due to low viral load, and the ability of rapid mutation of SARS-CoV-2 also increases the rate of false-negative results. Moreover, the mixed sample nucleic acid detection is helpful in seeking out the early community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly, but the detection kit needs ultra-high detection sensitivity. Herein, the lowest detection concentration of different nucleic acid detection kits was evaluated and compared to provide direct evidence for the selection of kits for mixed sample detection or make recommendations for the selection of validation kit, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of the current epidemic and the discharge criteria of low viral load patients.
| S-EPMC7673793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RT-PCR is the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2, however, its capacity is limited. We evaluated an automated antigen detection (AAD) test, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Roche, Germany), for detecting SARS-CoV-2. We compared the limit of detection (LOD) between AAD test, rapid antigen detection (RAD) test; SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (SD Biosensor, Korea), and in-house RT-PCR test. LOD results showed that the AAD test was 100 fold more sensitive than the RAD test, while the sensitivity of the AAD test was comparable to the RT-PCR test. The AAD test detected between 85.7% and 88.6% of RT-PCR-positive specimens collected from COVID-19 patients, false negative results were observed for specimens with Ct values >30. Although clinical sensitivity for the AAD test was not superior or comparable to the RT-PCR test in the present study, the AAD test may be an alternative to RT-PCR test in terms of turn-around time and throughput.
| S-EPMC8284070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Respiratory infections, like the current COVID-19 pandemic, target epithelial cells in the respiratory tract. Alveolar macrophages (AMs) are tissue-resident macrophages located within the lung. They play a key role in the early phases of an immune response to respiratory viruses. AMs are likely the first immune cells to encounter SARS-CoV-2 during an infection and their reaction to the virus will have a profound impact on the outcome of the infection. Interferons (IFNs) are antiviral cytokines and among the first cytokines produced upon viral infection. In this study, AMs from non-infectious donors are challenged with SARS-CoV-2. We demonstrate that challenged AMs are incapable of sensing SARS-CoV-2 and of producing an IFN response in contrast to other respiratory viruses, like influenza A virus and Sendai virus, which trigger a robust IFN response. The absence of IFN production in AMs upon challenge with SARS-CoV2 could explain the initial asymptotic phase observed during COVID-19 and argues against AMs being the sources of proinflammatory cytokines later during infection.
| S-SCDT-EMBOR-2020-51252V1 | biostudies-other
Project description:Population scale sweeps of viral pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2, require high intensity testing for effective management. However, reliable systems affording parallel testing of thousands of patients for pathogen infection have not yet been routinely employed. Here we describe “Systematic Parallel Analysis of RNA coupled to Sequencing for Covid-19 screening” (C19-SPAR-Seq), a multiplexed, readily automated platform for SARS-CoV-2 detection capable of analyzing tens of thousands of patient samples in a single instrument run. To address strict requirements for control of assay parameters and output demanded by clinical diagnostics, we employed a control-based Precision-Recall and Receiver Operator Characteristics (coPR) analysis to assign run-specific quality control metrics. C19-SPAR-Seq coupled to coPR on a trial cohort of several hundred patients performed with a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 91% on samples with low viral loads. Our study thus establishes the feasibility of employing C19-SPAR-Seq for the large-scale monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens.
2021-01-24 | GSE160032 | GEO
Project description:ObjectivesSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has had a significant impact on global public health systems, making nucleic acid detection an important tool in epidemic prevention and control. Detection kits based on real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) have been used widely in clinics, but their analytical sensitivity (limit of detection, LOD) remains controversial. Moreover, there is limited research evaluating the analytical sensitivity of other molecular detection kits.MethodsIn this study, armored ribonucleic acid reference materials developed in-house were used to evaluate the analytical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits approved by the National Medical Products Administration. These were based on rRT-PCR and other molecular detection assays.ResultsThe percentage retesting required with rRT-PCR kits was as follows: 0%, 7.69%, 15.38%, and 23.08% for samples with concentrations ranging from 50 000 to 781 copies/ml. In total, 93% of rRT-PCR kits had a LOD <1000 copies/ml. Only one kit had an LOD >1000 copies/ml. The LOD of other molecular detection kits ranged from 68 to 2264 copies/ml.ConclusionsThe study findings can help pharmaceutical companies optimize and improve detection kits, guide laboratories in selecting kits, and assist medical workers in their daily work.
| S-EPMC8379823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‑qPCR) is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection. Due to pre‑analytical and technical limitations, samples with low viral load are often misdiagnosed as false‑negative samples. Therefore, it is important to evaluate other strategies able to overcome the limits of RT‑qPCR. Blinded swab samples from two individuals diagnosed positive and negative for COVID‑19 were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT‑qPCR in order to assess the sensitivity of both methods. Intercalation chemistries and a World Health Organization (WHO)/Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)‑approved probe for the SARS‑CoV‑2 N gene were used. SYBR‑Green RT‑qPCR is not able to diagnose as positive samples with low viral load, while, TaqMan Probe RT‑qPCR gave positive signals at very late Ct values. On the contrary, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity rate compared to RT‑qPCR and both EvaGreen and probe ddPCR were able to recognize the sample with low viral load as positive even at 10‑fold diluted concentration. In conclusion, ddPCR shows higher sensitivity and specificity compared to RT‑qPCR for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in false‑negative samples with low viral load. Therefore, ddPCR is strongly recommended in clinical practice for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 and the follow‑up of positive patients until complete remission.
| S-EPMC7388836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is essential for establishing rates of seroconversion in populations, and for seeking evidence for a level of antibody that may be protective against COVID-19 disease. Several high-performance commercial tests have been described, but these require centralised laboratory facilities that are comparatively expensive, and therefore not available universally. Red cell agglutination tests do not require special equipment, are read by eye, have short development times, low cost and can be applied at the Point of Care. Here we describe a quantitative Haemagglutination test (HAT) for the detection of antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The HAT has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99% for detection of antibodies after a PCR diagnosed infection. We will supply aliquots of the test reagent sufficient for ten thousand test wells free of charge to qualified research groups anywhere in the world.
| S-EPMC8007702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can spread from symptomatic patients with COVID-19, but also from asymptomatic individuals. Therefore, robust surveillance and timely interventions are essential for the control of virus spread within the community. In this regard the frequency of testing and speed of reporting, but not the test sensitivity alone, play a crucial role.ObjectivesIn order to reduce the costs and meet the expanding demands in real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, complementary assays, such as rapid antigen tests, have been developed. Rigorous analysis under varying conditions is required to assess the clinical performance of these tests and to ensure reproducible results.ResultsWe evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a recently licensed rapid antigen test using 137 clinical samples in two institutions. Test sensitivity was between 88.2-89.6 % when applied to samples with viral loads typically seen in infectious patients. Of 32 rRT-PCR positive samples, 19 demonstrated infectivity in cell culture, and 84 % of these samples were reactive with the antigen test. Seven full-genome sequenced SARS-CoV-2 isolates and SARS-CoV-1 were detected with this antigen test, with no cross-reactivity against other common respiratory viruses.ConclusionsNumerous antigen tests are available for SARS-CoV-2 testing and their performance to detect infectious individuals may vary. Head-to-head comparison along with cell culture testing for infectivity may prove useful to identify better performing antigen tests. The antigen test analyzed in this study is easy-to-use, inexpensive, and scalable. It can be helpful in monitoring infection trends and thus has potential to reduce transmission.
| S-EPMC7832367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is pivotal for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and it has implications for patient management. Our aim was to determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.MethodsThis population-based retrospective study was conducted in March-April 2020 in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland. Adults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, with sufficient data in their medical records for grading of clinical suspicion were eligible. In addition to examining the first RT-PCR test of repeat-tested individuals, we also used high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 as the reference standard for calculating the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.ResultsAll 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women) admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases (repeat-tested patients) was 85.7% (81.5-89.1%) inpatients; 95.5% (92.2-97.5%) outpatients, 89.9% (88.2-92.1%) all. When also patients that were graded as high suspicion but never tested positive were included in the denominator, the sensitivity (95% CI) was: 67.5% (62.9-71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4-38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4-50.3%) all.ConclusionsThe clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing was only moderate at best. The relatively high false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing need to be accounted for in clinical decision making, epidemiological interpretations, and when using RT-PCR as a reference for other tests.
| S-EPMC8139477 | biostudies-literature