SARS-CoV-2 viral load monitoring by extraction-free testing of saliva
Qiu, Y.; Lu, L.; Gao, D.; McGrath, P.; Han, C.; Kogut, I.; Blomquist, B.; Yao, X.; Zevallos, J. P.; Harry, B.; Lu, S.-l.
Show abstract
Real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) remains the foundation of SARS-CoV-2 testing due to its accessibility, scalability, and superior assay performance. Variability in specimens and methods prevent standardization of RT-qPCR assays and reliable quantitative reporting to assess viral load. We developed an extraction-free RT-qPCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and monitored viral load until convalescence in COVID-19 patients. Comparison of 231 matched anterior nares swab and saliva specimens demonstrated that extraction-free testing of saliva has equivalent analytical and clinical assay performance compared to testing of RNA extracts from either anterior nares or saliva specimens. Analysis of specimen pairs revealed higher viral loads in the nasal cavity compared to the oral cavity, although this difference did not impact clinical sensitivity for COVID-19. Extraction-free testing of a combination specimen consisting of both nasal swab and saliva is also demonstrated. Assessment of viral load by RT-qPCR and parallel digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) revealed that cycle threshold (Ct) values less than approximately 30 correlated well with viral load, whereas Ct values greater than 30 correspond to low viral loads <10 copies/{micro}L. Therefore, extraction-free saliva testing maximizes testing efficiency without compromising assay performance and approximates viral loads >10 copies/{micro}L. This technology can facilitate high-throughput laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2, monitor viral load in individual patients, and assess efficacy of therapies for COVID-19.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing 96%
- Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection 96%
- Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Practical strategies for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in resource-constrained settings 96%
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 94%
- Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection in Saliva by real-time RT-PCR and RT-PCR/MALDI-TOF Methods 95%
- Pooling of Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR 93%
- Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Human Biofluids Using the Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay: A Prospective Diagnostic Study in Fortaleza, Brazil 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron 94%
- Comparison of commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 94%
- A SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Variant that Affects Antigen Test Performance 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.