Abstract
Objectives
To establish the optimal parameters for group testing of pooled specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Methods
The most efficient pool size was determined to be five specimens ...using a web-based application. From this analysis, 25 experimental pools were created using 50 µL from one SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal specimen mixed with 4 negative patient specimens (50 µL each) for a total volume of 250 µL. Viral RNA was subsequently extracted from each pool and tested using the CDC SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay. Positive pools were consequently split into individual specimens and tested by extraction and PCR. This method was also tested on an unselected group of 60 nasopharyngeal specimens grouped into 12 pools.
Results
All 25 pools were positive with cycle threshold (Ct) values within 0 and 5.03 Ct of the original individual specimens. The analysis of 60 specimens determined that 2 pools were positive followed by identification of 2 individual specimens among the 60 tested. This testing was accomplished while using 22 extractions/PCR tests, a savings of 38 reactions.
Conclusions
When the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or less, group testing will result in the saving of reagents and personnel time with an overall increase in testing capability of at least 69%.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is commonly diagnosed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to ...detect viral RNA in patient samples, but RNA extraction constitutes a major bottleneck in current testing. Methodological simplification could increase diagnostic availability and efficiency, benefitting patient care and infection control. Here, we describe methods circumventing RNA extraction in COVID-19 testing by performing RT-PCR directly on heat-inactivated or lysed samples. Our data, including benchmarking using 597 clinical patient samples and a standardised diagnostic system, demonstrate that direct RT-PCR is viable option to extraction-based tests. Using controlled amounts of active SARS-CoV-2, we confirm effectiveness of heat inactivation by plaque assay and evaluate various generic buffers as transport medium for direct RT-PCR. Significant savings in time and cost are achieved through RNA-extraction-free protocols that are directly compatible with established PCR-based testing pipelines. This could aid expansion of COVID-19 testing.
The clinical performances of six molecular diagnostic tests and a rapid antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were clinically evaluated for the diagnosis of ...coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in self-collected saliva. Saliva samples from 103 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (15 asymptomatic and 88 symptomatic) were collected on the day of hospital admission. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was detected using a quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) laboratory-developed test (LDT), a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, three direct RT-qPCR kits, and reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). The viral antigen was detected by a rapid antigen immunochromatographic assay. Of the 103 samples, viral RNA was detected in 50.5 to 81.6% of the specimens by molecular diagnostic tests, and an antigen was detected in 11.7% of the specimens by the rapid antigen test. Viral RNA was detected at significantly higher percentages (65.6 to 93.4%) in specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset than in specimens collected after at least 10 days of symptoms (22.2 to 66.7%) and in specimens collected from asymptomatic patients (40.0 to 66.7%). Self-collected saliva is an alternative specimen option for diagnosing COVID-19. The RT-qPCR LDT, a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, direct RT-qPCR kits (except for one commercial kit), and RT-LAMP showed sufficient sensitivities in clinical use to be selectively used in clinical settings and facilities. The rapid antigen test alone is not recommended for an initial COVID-19 diagnosis because of its low sensitivity.
The ongoing global pandemic (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a huge public health issue. Hence, we devised a multiplex reverse ...transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (mRT-LAMP) coupled with a nanoparticle-based lateral flow biosensor (LFB) assay (mRT-LAMP-LFB) for diagnosing COVID-19. Using two LAMP primer sets, the ORF1ab (opening reading frame 1a/b) and N (nucleoprotein) genes of SARS-CoV-2 were simultaneously amplified in a single-tube reaction, and detected with the diagnosis results easily interpreted by LFB. In presence of FITC (fluorescein)-/digoxin- and biotin-labeled primers, mRT-LAMP produced numerous FITC-/digoxin- and biotin-attached duplex amplicons, which were determined by LFB through immunoreactions (FITC/digoxin on the duplex and anti-FITC/digoxin on the test line of LFB) and biotin/treptavidin interaction (biotin on the duplex and strptavidin on the polymerase nanoparticle). The accumulation of nanoparticles leaded a characteristic crimson band, enabling multiplex analysis of ORF1ab and N gene without instrumentation. The limit of detection (LoD) of COVID-19 mRT-LAMP-LFB was 12 copies (for each detection target) per reaction, and no cross-reactivity was generated from non-SARS-CoV-2 templates. The analytical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 was 100% (33/33 oropharynx swab samples collected from COVID-19 patients), and the assay's specificity was also 100% (96/96 oropharynx swab samples collected from non-COVID-19 patients). The total diagnostic test can be completed within 1 h from sample collection to result interpretation. In sum, the COVID-19 mRT-LAMP-LFB assay is a promising tool for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections in frontline public health field and clinical laboratories, especially from resource-poor regions.
•A COVID-19 mRT-LAMP-LFB assay was successfully devised for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection..•mRT-LAMP-LFB assy only requires simple heating equipment to maintain a constant temperature of 63 °C for 40 min.•The total diagnostic test can be completed within 1 h from sample collection to result interpretation.
The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic. This unprecedented situation has garnered ...worldwide attention. An effective strategy for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic is to develop highly accurate methods for the rapid identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Many companies and institutes are therefore striving to develop effective methods for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA), antibodies, antigens, and the virus. In this review, we summarize the structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its genome and gene expression characteristics, and the current progression of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, antibodies, antigens, and virus detection. Further, we discuss the reasons for the observed false-negative and false-positive RNA and antibody detection results in practical clinical applications. Finally, we provide a review of the biosensors which hold promising potential for point-of-care detection of COVID-19 patients. This review thereby provides general guidelines for both scientists in the biosensing research community and for those in the biosensor industry to develop a highly sensitive and accurate point-of-care COVID-19 detection system, which would be of enormous benefit for controlling the current COVID-19 pandemic.
•The viral particles structure, genome and gene expression characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 are described.•The current SARS-CoV-2 viral particles, RNA, antigens, and antibody detection methods are reviewed.•The clinical performance and unmet problems associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA antigen, and antibody detection are highlighted.•Potential biosensors for use in developing point-of-care, rapid, high-sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 detection methods are discussed.
In the coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, highly selective serological testing is essential to define exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Many tests ...have been developed, yet with variable speeds to first results, and are of unknown quality, particularly when considering the prediction of neutralizing capacity. The LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay was designed to measure antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 native S1/S2 proteins in a standardized automated chemiluminescence assay. The clinical and analytical performances of the test were validated in an observational study using residual samples (>1,500) with a positive or negative COVID-19 diagnosis. The LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay proved to be highly selective and specific and offered semiquantitative measures of serum or plasma levels of anti-S1/S2 IgG with neutralizing activity. The assay's diagnostic sensitivities were 91.3% and 95.7% at >5 or ≥15 days from diagnosis, respectively, and 100% when assessed against a neutralizing assay. The assay's specificity ranged between 97% and 98.5%. The average imprecision of the assay was a <5% coefficient of variation. Assay performance at 2 different cutoffs was evaluated to optimize predictive values. The automated LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay brings efficient, sensitive, specific, and precise serological testing to the laboratory, with the capacity to test large amounts of samples per day; first results are available within 35 min, with a throughput of 170 tests/hour. The semiquantitative results provided by the test also associate with the presence of neutralizing antibodies and may provide a useful tool for the large-scale screening of convalescent-phase plasma for safe therapeutic use.
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) brought with it rapid development of both molecular and serologic assays for identification of COVID-19 infections. While ...Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) is required for clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests, submission for EUA is currently a voluntary process for manufacturers of serologic assays. The absence of FDA oversight of serologic tests is concerning given that the commercially available serologic assays are highly variable, differing in their format, the antibody class detected, the targeted antigen, and the acceptable specimen types. An added complication is the lack of a clear understanding for how such assays should be utilized and what the reported results ultimately indicate or, perhaps more importantly, what they do not indicate. Here, we provide a brief summary of the performance of a number of serologic assays reported in the literature, comment on what we do and do not know regarding our immune response to SARS-CoV-2, and provide a number of scenarios for which serologic testing will play a role during our global response to this pandemic.
PDF
