Cross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis
| dc.creator | Segura Ulate, Ismael | |
| dc.creator | Apú Leitón, Navilla | |
| dc.creator | Cortés Ledezma, Bernal | |
| dc.creator | Zaldívar, Yamitzel | |
| dc.creator | Querol Audi, Jordi | |
| dc.creator | Ortega, Carlos Alexander | |
| dc.creator | Flores Mora, Fernando Esteban | |
| dc.creator | Madrigal Redondo, German Leonardo | |
| dc.creator | Gatica Arias, Andrés Mauricio | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-07T21:36:10Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-07T21:36:10Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other. Methods: we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heatinduced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP. Results: RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88-96% sensitivity and 95-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction. Discussion: our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance. | |
| dc.description.procedence | UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias de la Salud::Instituto de Investigaciones Farmacéuticas (INIFAR) | |
| dc.description.procedence | UCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Ciencias Básicas::Facultad de Ciencias::Escuela de Biología | |
| dc.description.procedence | UCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Salud::Facultad de Farmacia | |
| dc.identifier.citation | https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142/abstract | |
| dc.identifier.codproyecto | 817-C1755 | |
| dc.identifier.codproyecto | 817-C0530 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2296-889X | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10669/91972 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.rights | acceso abierto | |
| dc.source | Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 11. | |
| dc.subject | SALIVA SAMPLE | |
| dc.subject | ALTERNATIVE PROTOCOL | |
| dc.subject | COVID-19 | |
| dc.title | Cross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis | |
| dc.type | artículo original |