Expansion of a low-cost, saliva-based PCR test for the detection of mpox virus
Thomas, R. J.; Yolda-Carr, D.; Fajardo, K.; Allicock, O. M.; Steel, S. A.; Zepeda, T.; Brownlee, M.; Saladi, S.; Parkin, J.; Wyllie, A. L.
Show abstract
BackgroundCurrent recommendations for the diagnosis of mpox rely on lesion-swabs as the gold-standard specimen type, even though many patients experience symptoms prior to lesion-onset. Alternative sample types, such as saliva, which enable earlier detection could bolster the mpox response by mitigating transmission and facilitating access to antiviral treatments. MethodsWe evaluated five PCR assays and compared their detection of mpox DNA extracted from 30 saliva specimens collected in Spectrum SDNA-1000 tubes. We sequenced seven mpox-positive samples and assessed concordance with the primers and probes of the PCR assays. Following, we incorporated these PCR assays into a simplified, extraction-free protocol to evaluate its feasibility for testing raw (unsupplemented) saliva samples. To further explore the potential of this approach, we investigated the stability of mpox detection in raw saliva diluted 1:10 and 1:100 in mpox-negative saliva, after storage at 4{degrees}C, room temperature ([~]19{degrees}C), 30{degrees}C, and 40{degrees}C for 72 hours and through simulated shipping conditions. ResultsDespite identifying three nucleotide substitutions in the CDCs Monkeypox virus Generic Real-Time PCR Tests primer sequences, we observed no difference in the mean Ct-values generated between assays. We successfully incorporated each assay into our saliva-based extraction-free PCR protocol. Detection in raw saliva following storage at 4{degrees}C, [~]19{degrees}C, and 30{degrees}C remained relatively stable for 24-48 hours and following simulated shipping conditions. ConclusionsThis pilot investigation supports a flexible, saliva-based, extraction-free PCR test as a promising approach for diagnosis, outbreak response or ongoing surveillance of mpox. With detection in raw saliva remaining stable for 24-48 hours and through simulated shipping temperatures, saliva-based sampling and simplified testing could reduce diagnostic costs, increase access to testing and address hurdles in low- and middle-income countries.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Laboratory Validation and Clinical Implementation of Human Monkeypox Saliva-Based Tests 95%
- Real-life performance of a novel antigen detection test on nasopharyngeal specimens for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis: a prospective study 94%
- Saliva as a potential clinical specimen for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing 96%
- Clinical evaluation of self-collected saliva by RT-qPCR, direct RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP, and a rapid antigen test to diagnose COVID-19 95%
- Performance of saliva specimens for the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting: does sample collection method matter? 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic accuracy of three mpox lateral flow assays for antigen detection in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United Kingdom 94%
- Saliva offers a sensitive, specific and non-invasive alternative to upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. 93%
- Clinical evaluation of the Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test with symptomatic, non-hospitalized patients in a municipal health service drive-through testing site 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 96%
- 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 95%
- Multicenter benchmarking of short and long read wet lab protocols for clinical viral metagenomics 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.