tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Sci Rep
. 2022 Feb 18;12(1):2806.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06642-5.
Investigation of discordant SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results using minimally processed saliva
Dawn White[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jimmy Gu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Catherine-Jean Steinberg[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Deborah Yamamura[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Bruno J Salena[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Cynthia Balion[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Carlos D M Filipe[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Alfredo Capretta[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yingfu Li[SUP] 7 8 9 10 [/SUP], John D Brennan[SUP] 11 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Saliva is an attractive sample for coronavirus disease 2019 testing due its ease of collection and amenability to detect viral RNA with minimal processing. Using a direct-to-RT-PCR method with saliva self-collected from confirmed COVID-19 positive volunteers, we observed 32% false negative results. Confirmed negative and healthy volunteer samples spiked with 10[SUP]6[/SUP] genome copies/mL of heat-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 showed false negative results of 10% and 13%, respectively. Additional sample heating or dilution of the false negative samples conferred only modest improvements. These results highlight the potential to significantly underdiagnose COVID-19 infections when testing directly from minimally processed heterogeneous saliva samples.
. 2022 Feb 18;12(1):2806.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06642-5.
Investigation of discordant SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results using minimally processed saliva
Dawn White[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jimmy Gu[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Catherine-Jean Steinberg[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Deborah Yamamura[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Bruno J Salena[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Cynthia Balion[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Carlos D M Filipe[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Alfredo Capretta[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yingfu Li[SUP] 7 8 9 10 [/SUP], John D Brennan[SUP] 11 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35181678
- DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06642-5
Abstract
Saliva is an attractive sample for coronavirus disease 2019 testing due its ease of collection and amenability to detect viral RNA with minimal processing. Using a direct-to-RT-PCR method with saliva self-collected from confirmed COVID-19 positive volunteers, we observed 32% false negative results. Confirmed negative and healthy volunteer samples spiked with 10[SUP]6[/SUP] genome copies/mL of heat-inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 showed false negative results of 10% and 13%, respectively. Additional sample heating or dilution of the false negative samples conferred only modest improvements. These results highlight the potential to significantly underdiagnose COVID-19 infections when testing directly from minimally processed heterogeneous saliva samples.