Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 virus in saliva using a guanidium based transport medium suitable for RT-PCR diagnostic assays

Development of Aptamers for RNase Inactivation in Xtract-Free™ Sample Collection and Transport Medium

There is a significant need to develop new environmentally friendly, extraction-free sample collection mediums that can effectively preserve and protect genetic material for point-of-care and/or self-collection, home-collection, and mail-back testing. Systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX) was used to create anti-ribonuclease (RNase) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) aptamers against purified RNase A conjugated to paramagnetic carboxylated beads. Following eight rounds of SELEX carried out under various stringency conditions, e.g., selection using Xtract-Free™ (XF) specimen collection medium and elevated ambient temperature of 28 °C, a panel of five aptamers was chosen following bioinformatic analysis using next-generation sequencing. The efficacy of aptamer inactivation of RNase was assessed by monitoring ribonucleic acid (RNA) integrity via fluorometric and real-time RT-PCR analysis. Inclusion of aptamers in reaction incubations resulted in an 8800- to 11,200-fold reduction in RNase activity, i.e., digestion of viral RNA compared to control. Thus, anti-RNase aptamers integrated into XF collection medium as well as other commercial reagents and kits have great potential for ensuring quality intact RNA for subsequent genomic analyses.

Efficacy Validation of SARS-CoV-2-Inactivation and Viral Genome Stability in Saliva by a Guanidine Hydrochloride and Surfactant-Based Virus Lysis/Transport Buffer

To enhance biosafety and reliability in SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis, virus lysis/transport buffers should inactivate the virus and preserve viral RNA under various conditions. Herein, we evaluated the SARS-CoV-2-inactivating activity of guanidine hydrochloride (GuHCl)- and surfactant (hexadecyltrimethylammonium chloride (Hexa-DTMC))-based buffer, Prep Buffer A, (Precision System Science Co., Ltd., Matsudo, Japan) and its efficacy in maintaining the stability of viral RNA at different temperatures using the traditional real-time one-step RT-PCR and geneLEAD VIII sample-to-result platform. Although Prep Buffer A successfully inactivated SARS-CoV-2 in solutions with high and low organic substance loading, there was considerable viral genome degradation at 35 °C compared with that at 4 °C. The individual roles of GuHCl and Hexa-DTMC in virus inactivation and virus genome stability at 35 °C were clarified. Hexa-DTMC alone (0.384%), but not 1.5 M GuHCl alone, exhibited considerable virucidal activity, suggesting that it was essential for potently inactivating SARS-CoV-2 using Prep Buffer A. GuHCl and Hexa-DTMC individually reduced the viral copy numbers to the same degree as Prep Buffer A. Although both components inhibited RNase activity, Hexa-DTMC, but not GuHCl, directly destroyed naked viral RNA. Our findings suggest that samples collected in Prep Buffer A should be stored at 4 °C when RT-PCR will not be performed for several days.

Sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing

Introduction

Non-invasive sample collection and viral sterilizing buffers have independently enabled workflows for more widespread COVID-19 testing by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).

Gap Statement

The combined use of sterilizing buffers across non-invasive sample types to optimize sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods has not been directly and systematically compared.

Aim

We aimed to evaluate diagnostic yield across different non-invasive samples with standard viral transport media (VTM) versus a sterilizing buffer eNAT- (Copan diagnostics Murrieta, CA) in a point-of-care diagnostic assay system.

Methodos

We prospectively collected 84 sets of nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva were placed in either VTM or eNAT, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert). The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard.

Results

Swab specimens collected in eNAT showed an overall superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70 % vs 57 %, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5 %, (95 % CI: 82 %, 95 %), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8 %, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.0001) or eNAT (58 %, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.

Conclusion

Saliva and eNAT sterilizing buffer can enhance safe and sensitive detection of COVID-19 using point-of-care GeneXpert instruments.

Evaluation of sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing

Sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods for COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are needed for frequent and widespread testing. We systematically evaluated diagnostic yield across different sample collection and transport workflows, including the incorporation of a viral inactivation buffer. We prospectively collected nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal and oral swabs were placed in both viral transport media (VTM) and eNAT™, a sterilizing transport buffer, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test. The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Overall, swab specimens collected in eNAT showed superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70% vs 57%, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5%, (95% CI: 82%, 95%), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8%, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.0001) or eNAT (56%, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert test; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.