Back

Challenges, innovations and considerations for the use of tongue swabs in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex detection

David, A.; Peloakgosi-Shikwambani, K.; Nsingwane, Z.; Molepo, V.; Stevens, W.; Scott, L.

2025-05-19 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.05.18.25327877 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSputum-based testing has long been the cornerstone of tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis, but emerging specimen types like tongue swabs (TS) offer additional approaches for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC). This two-phase study evaluated the impact of storage and transport conditions, along with laboratory processing modifications, to improve MTBC detection using TS tested on quantitative PCR (qPCR) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra). MethodsParticipants with positive Ultra sputum were enrolled at a healthcare facility in Johannesburg, South Africa. In Phase one, five serial TS were collected per participant and transported "dry" at 2-8{degrees}C. In Phase two, seven TS were collected and stored "dry," in Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer or PrimeStore(R) Molecular Transport Medium (MTM) and subjected to different storage temperatures (-80{degrees}C or 37{degrees}C) before laboratory testing. ResultsResults using qPCR and Ultra demonstrated that MTBC detection from serially collected TS was possible but sporadic, particularly in individuals with lower bacillary loads. Vortex bead beating (VBB) improved detection compared to heat lysis alone. Storage at -80{degrees}C was shown to be a viable option for longer term storage while short-term storage at 37{degrees}C was feasible. Ultra testing showed improved detection when TS were processed with diluted SR buffer. ConclusionsTS offer a viable, though variable, specimen type for MTBC detection. Optimizing processing methods, such as incorporating VBB and diluted SR buffer, and selecting appropriate storage conditions can enhance diagnostic performance and support broader implementation in diverse settings.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.