tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Chim Acta
. 2023 Jun 2;117415.
doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117415. Online ahead of print. CBPH assay for the highest sensitive detection of SARS-COV-2 in the semen
Shuai-Feng Zhou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Chuan Huang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Shi-Kang Li[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Xiao-Lei Long[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Yu Chen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Fan-Zhang[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Zhi-Fei Zhan[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Shi-Xiong Hu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Chun-Sheng Hu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Lu Chen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Shi-Ping Wang[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Li-Qing Fan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wei-Jun Chen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Li-Dong Gao[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Wen-Bing Zhu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xue-Jun Ma[SUP] 8 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Background: Great concerns have been raised on SARS-CoV-2 impact on men's andrological well-being, and many studies have attempted to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in the semen and till now the data are unclear and somehow ambiguous. However, these studies used quantitative real-time (qRT) PCR, which is not sufficiently sensitive to detect nucleic acids in clinical samples with a low viral load.
Methods: The clinical performance of various nucleic acid detection methods (qRT-PCR, OSN-qRT-PCR, cd-PCR, and CBPH) was assessed for SARS-CoV-2 using 236 clinical samples from laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases. Then, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the semen of 12 recovering patients was investigated using qRT-PCR, OSN-qRT-PCR, cd-PCR, and CBPH in parallel using 24 paired semen, blood, throat swab, and urine samples.
Results: The sensitivity and specificity along with AUC of CBPH was markedly higher than the other 3methods. Although qRT-PCR, OSN-qRT-PCR and cdPCR detected no SARS-CoV-2 RNA in throat swab, blood, urine, and semen samples of the 12 patients, CBPH detected the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in semen samples, but not in paired urine samples, of 3 of 12 patients. The existing SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments were metabolized over time.
Conclusions: Both OSN-qRT-PCR and cdPCR had better performance than qRT-PCR, and CBPH had the highest diagnostic performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2, which contributed the most improvement to the determination of the critical value in gray area samples with low vrial load, which then provides a rational screening strategy for studying the clearance of coronavirus in the semen over time in patients recovering from COVID-19. Although the presence of SARS-CoV-2 fragments in the semen was demonstrated by CBPH, COVID-19 is unlikely to be sexually transmitted from male partners for at least 3 months after hospital discharge.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; capture-based probe hybridization, qRT-PCR; patients recovering from COVID-19; semen.
. 2023 Jun 2;117415.
doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117415. Online ahead of print. CBPH assay for the highest sensitive detection of SARS-COV-2 in the semen
Shuai-Feng Zhou[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Chuan Huang[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Shi-Kang Li[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Xiao-Lei Long[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Yu Chen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Fan-Zhang[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Zhi-Fei Zhan[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Shi-Xiong Hu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Chun-Sheng Hu[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Lu Chen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Shi-Ping Wang[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Li-Qing Fan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wei-Jun Chen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Li-Dong Gao[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Wen-Bing Zhu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Xue-Jun Ma[SUP] 8 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 37271272
- DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117415
Background: Great concerns have been raised on SARS-CoV-2 impact on men's andrological well-being, and many studies have attempted to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in the semen and till now the data are unclear and somehow ambiguous. However, these studies used quantitative real-time (qRT) PCR, which is not sufficiently sensitive to detect nucleic acids in clinical samples with a low viral load.
Methods: The clinical performance of various nucleic acid detection methods (qRT-PCR, OSN-qRT-PCR, cd-PCR, and CBPH) was assessed for SARS-CoV-2 using 236 clinical samples from laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases. Then, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the semen of 12 recovering patients was investigated using qRT-PCR, OSN-qRT-PCR, cd-PCR, and CBPH in parallel using 24 paired semen, blood, throat swab, and urine samples.
Results: The sensitivity and specificity along with AUC of CBPH was markedly higher than the other 3methods. Although qRT-PCR, OSN-qRT-PCR and cdPCR detected no SARS-CoV-2 RNA in throat swab, blood, urine, and semen samples of the 12 patients, CBPH detected the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in semen samples, but not in paired urine samples, of 3 of 12 patients. The existing SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments were metabolized over time.
Conclusions: Both OSN-qRT-PCR and cdPCR had better performance than qRT-PCR, and CBPH had the highest diagnostic performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2, which contributed the most improvement to the determination of the critical value in gray area samples with low vrial load, which then provides a rational screening strategy for studying the clearance of coronavirus in the semen over time in patients recovering from COVID-19. Although the presence of SARS-CoV-2 fragments in the semen was demonstrated by CBPH, COVID-19 is unlikely to be sexually transmitted from male partners for at least 3 months after hospital discharge.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; capture-based probe hybridization, qRT-PCR; patients recovering from COVID-19; semen.