Logo Kérwá
 

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.creatorSegura Ulate, Ismael
dc.creatorApú Leitón, Navilla
dc.creatorCortés Ledezma, Bernal
dc.creatorZaldívar, Yamitzel
dc.creatorQuerol Audi, Jordi
dc.creatorOrtega, Carlos Alexander
dc.creatorFlores Mora, Fernando Esteban
dc.creatorMadrigal Redondo, German Leonardo
dc.creatorGatica Arias, Andrés Mauricio
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-07T21:36:10Z
dc.date.available2024-08-07T21:36:10Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.procedenceUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias de la Salud::Instituto de Investigaciones Farmacéuticas (INIFAR)
dc.description.procedenceUCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Ciencias Básicas::Facultad de Ciencias::Escuela de Biología
dc.description.procedenceUCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Salud::Facultad de Farmacia
dc.identifier.citationhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142/abstract
dc.identifier.codproyecto817-C1755
dc.identifier.codproyecto817-C0530
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142
dc.identifier.issn2296-889X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10669/91972
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsacceso abierto
dc.sourceFrontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 11.
dc.subjectSALIVA SAMPLE
dc.subjectALTERNATIVE PROTOCOL
dc.subjectCOVID-19
dc.titleCross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis
dc.typeartículo original

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Generated Manuscript.PDF
Size:
338.68 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
3.5 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:

Collections