Back

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 isolation in cell culture from nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva specimens of patients with COVID-19

Yazawa, S.; Yamazaki, E.; Saga, Y.; Itamochi, M.; Inasaki, N.; Shimada, T.; Oishi, K.; Tani, H.

2023-02-17 microbiology
10.1101/2023.02.16.528881 bioRxiv
Show abstract

It has been revealed that SARS-CoV-2 can be efficiently isolated from clinical specimens such as nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva in cultured cells. In this study, we examined the efficiency of viral isolation including SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains between nasal/nasopharyngeal swab or saliva specimens. Furthermore, we also examined the comparison of viral isolation rates by sample species using simulated specimens for COVID- 19. As a result, it was found that the isolation efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva specimens was significantly lower than that in the nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens. In order to determine which component of saliva is responsible for the lower isolation rate of saliva specimens, we tested the abilities of lactoferrin, amylase, cathelicidin, and mucin, which are considered to be abundant in saliva, to inhibit the infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped viruses (SARS-CoV-2pv). Lactoferrin and amylase were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2pv infection. In conclusion, even if the same number of viral genome copies was detected by the real-time RT-PCR test, infection of SARS-CoV-2 present in saliva is thought to be inhibited by inhibitory factors such as lactoferrin and amylase, compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Virology
○ 140 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.9%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
8.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Microbiology Spectrum
● 469 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.6%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 14%
5.6%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Frontiers in Microbiology
○ 427 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.4%
7
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
○ 84 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.4%
8
Viruses
○ 332 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
9
Emerging Microbes & Infections
○ 74 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.8%
10
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
○ 109 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
11
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
○ 129 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
12
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Pathogens
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
14
Microorganisms
○ 106 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.4%
15
Virology Journal
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
16
Journal of Virology
● 499 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
○ 120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
Virus Research
○ 37 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
20
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.9%
21
mSphere
● 302 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
22
Journal of Clinical Virology
○ 63 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy
○ 30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
BioMed Research International
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
26
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 69%
0.6%
28
Virologica Sinica
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
29
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
● 130 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%

"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.