Evaluation of RNA Extraction-Free Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Salivary Samples for Mass Screening for COVID-19

Optimization of extraction-free protocols for SARS-CoV-2 detection using a commercial rRT-PCR assay

In the ongoing global fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the sample preparation process for real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) faces challenges due to time-consuming steps, labor-intensive procedures, contamination risks, resource demands, and environmental implications. However, optimized strategies for sample preparation have been poorly investigated, and the combination of RNase inhibitors and Proteinase K has been rarely considered. Hence, we investigated combinations of several extraction-free protocols incorporating heat treatment, sample dilution, and Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors, and validated the effectiveness using 120 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 62 negative clinical samples. Combining sample dilution and heat treatment with Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors addition exhibited the highest sensitivity (84.26%) with a mean increase in cycle threshold (Ct) value of + 3.8. Meanwhile, combined sample dilution and heat treatment exhibited a sensitivity of 79.63%, accounting for a 38% increase compared to heat treatment alone. Our findings highlight that the incorporation of Proteinase K and RNase inhibitors with sample dilution and heat treatment contributed only marginally to the improvement without yielding statistically significant differences. Sample dilution significantly impacts SARS-CoV-2 detection, and sample conditions play a crucial role in the efficiency of extraction-free methods. Our findings may provide insights for streamlining diagnostic testing, enhancing its accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability.

Performance Evaluation of Different RT-PCR Kits for the Direct Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Preheated Specimens

Background  Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has created high demand for molecular kits and consumables for mass screening of suspected individuals. Direct real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay without nucleic acid extraction has several advantages in saving testing time and cost and helps in the rapid reporting of SARS-CoV-2. The present study evaluated the analytical performance of four SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR for direct RT-PCR testing using preheated specimens. Methods  A total of 100 clinical specimens were selected and divided into three different groups: (1) group I: 20 SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens with high viral load, viz., low Ct values (< 30 Ct), (2) group II: 50 SARS-CoV-2 positive specimens with low viral load, viz., high Ct values (> 30 Ct), and (3) group III: 30 SARS-CoV-2 negative specimens. Specimens were heat-inactivated at 70°C for 10 minutes and cooled down at 4°C and were evaluated for standard and direct RT-PCR method by using ViralDtect-II Multiplex Real-Time PCR kit, TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit, COVIDsure Pro Multiplex RT-PCR kit, and Hi-PCR Coronavirus (COVID-19) Multiplex Probe PCR kit. Results  Results showed that except ViralDtect-II kit, the other three TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit, COVIDsure Pro kit, and Hi-PCR Coronavirus (COVID-19) RT-PCR kit were able to amplify all the SARS-CoV-2 genes in the direct RT-PCR method using preheated specimens. In group I specimens, 100% sensitivity was observed in all three RT-PCR kits. In group II specimens, COVIDsure Pro kit was found to be superior among other kits. Conclusion  Direct RT-PCR method during pandemic situation is valuable and cost effective for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. All three TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit, COVIDsure Pro kit, and Hi-PCR Coronavirus (COVID-19) RT-PCR kit can be used for direct RT-PCR method and COVIDsure Pro kit performance was found to be superior among all.

Method versatility in RNA extraction-free PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples

Early in the pandemic, a simple, open-source, RNA extraction-free RT-qPCR protocol for SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva was developed and made widely available. This simplified approach (SalivaDirect) requires only sample treatment with proteinase K prior to PCR testing. However, feedback from clinical laboratories highlighted a need for a flexible workflow that can be seamlessly integrated into their current health and safety requirements for the receiving and handling of potentially infectious samples. To address these varying needs, we explored additional pre-PCR workflows. We built upon the original SalivaDirect workflow to include an initial incubation step (95 °C for 30 min, 95 °C for 5 min or 65 °C for 15 min) with or without addition of proteinase K. The limit of detection for the workflows tested did not significantly differ from that of the original SalivaDirect workflow. When tested on de-identified saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 individuals, these workflows also produced comparable virus detection and assay sensitivities, as determined by RT-qPCR analysis. Exclusion of proteinase K did not negatively affect the sensitivity of the assay. The addition of multiple heat pretreatment options to the SalivaDirect protocol increases the accessibility of this cost-effective SARS-CoV-2 test as it gives diagnostic laboratories the flexibility to implement the workflow which best suits their safety protocols.

Extraction-Free Colorimetric RT-LAMP Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva

The pandemic situation caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has highlighted the need of fast, simple, and cost-effective tests for the diagnosis of emerging pathogens. RT-qPCR has been established as the reference technique for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. This method requires a time-consuming protocol for the extraction of the nucleic acids present in the sample. A colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification using the calcein molecule combined with a simple extraction-free method for saliva samples (calcein RT-LAMP) has been developed. Samples are heated 95 °C for 10 min before amplification at 63 °C for 40 min. The results can be observed by fluorescence or by the naked eye with a color change from orange to green. The method was compared with commercialized available colorimetric and fluorescent RT-LAMP kits. The developed method shows better sensitivity and specificity than the colorimetric commercial RT-LAMP and the same as the fluorescent RT-LAMP, without the need of a fluorescent reader. Moreover, the calcein RT-LAMP has, compared to RT-qPCR, a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 100% for saliva samples with a Ct ≤ 34, without the need for expensive RT-qPCR instruments, demonstrating the potential of this method for population screening.

Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Accurate identification at an early stage of infection is critical for effective care of any infectious disease. The "coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)" outbreak, caused by the virus "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)", corresponds to the current and global pandemic, characterized by several developing variants, many of which are classified as variants of concern (VOCs) by the "World Health Organization (WHO, Geneva, Switzerland)". The primary diagnosis of infection is made using either the molecular technique of RT-PCR, which detects parts of the viral genome's RNA, or immunodiagnostic procedures, which identify viral proteins or antibodies generated by the host. As the demand for the RT-PCR test grew fast, several inexperienced producers joined the market with innovative kits, and an increasing number of laboratories joined the diagnostic field, rendering the test results increasingly prone to mistakes. It is difficult to determine how the outcomes of one unnoticed result could influence decisions about patient quarantine and social isolation, particularly when the patients themselves are health care providers. The development of point-of-care testing helps in the rapid in-field diagnosis of the disease, and such testing can also be used as a bedside monitor for mapping the progression of the disease in critical patients. In this review, we have provided the readers with available molecular diagnostic techniques and their pitfalls in detecting emerging VOCs of SARS-CoV-2, and lastly, we have discussed AI-ML- and nanotechnology-based smart diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Simple and low-cost nucleic acid extraction methods for detection of SARS-CoV2 in self-collected saliva and dry oral swabs

Background

Ongoing need of alternative strategies for SARS-CoV-2 detection is undeniable. Self-collected samples without viral transport media (VTM), coupled with simple nucleic acid extraction methods for SARS-CoV-2 PCR are beneficial.

Objectives

To evaluate results of SARS-CoV-2 PCR using simple nucleic acid extraction methods from self -collected saliva and oral swabs without VTM.

Methods

A cross-sectional single-centre study was conducted on 125 participants (101 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases and 24 controls). PCR was performed following five simple nucleic acid extraction methods on self -collect saliva and oral swabs without VTM and results were compared with gold standard PCR. For saliva, kit-based extraction (SKE), Proteinase K and Heat extraction (SPHE), only Heat extraction (SHE) methods and for dry oral swabs, Proteinase K and Heat extraction (DPHE) and only Heat extraction (DHE) was performed.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 was detected in self-collected saliva and oral swabs. 93.07% were correctly classified as positive by SKE, 69.31% by SHE, 67.33% by SPHE, 67.33% by DPHE and 55.45% by DHE. Discriminant power of SKE was significantly higher than other methods (p-value < 0.001) with good- fair agreement of alternate extraction methods against gold standard.

Conclusion

Combination of self-collected saliva/ oral-swab without VTM and alternative RNA extraction methods offer a simplified, economical substitute strategy for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to summarize the diagnostic value of saliva assessed from current studies that (1) compare its performance in reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing to nasopharyngeal swabs, (2) evaluate its performance in rapid and point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostic tests, and (3) explore its use as a specimen for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed on the following databases: Medline and Embase (Ovid), World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Global Health (Ovid) from January 2019 to September 2021. Of the 657 publications identified from the searches, n = 146 articles were included in the final scoping review.

RESULTS

Our findings showcase that salivary samples exceed nasopharyngeal swabs in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in several studies. A select number of rapid antigen and point-of-care tests from the literature were also identified capable of high detection rates using saliva. Moreover, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been shown to be detectable in saliva through biochemical assays.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the potential of saliva as an all-rounded specimen in detecting SARS-CoV-2. However, future large-scale clinical studies will be needed to support its widespread use as a non-invasive clinical specimen for COVID-19 testing.

Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRp and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833-0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample ( p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.

Concordance between PCR-based extraction-free saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing

Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRP and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833-0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample ( p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.