Simply saliva: stability of SARS-CoV-2 detection negates the need for expensive collection devices (preprint)

Most currently approved strategies for the collection of saliva for COVID-19 diagnostics require specialized tubes containing buffers promoted for the stabilization of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and virus inactivation. Yet many of these are expensive, in limited supply, and not necessarily validated specifically for viral RNA. While saliva is a promising sample type as it can be reliably self-collected for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2, the expense and availability of these collection tubes are prohibitive to mass testing efforts. Therefore, we investigated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and infectious virus detection from saliva without supplementation. We tested RNA stability over extended periods of time (2-25 days) and at temperatures representing at-home storage and elevated temperatures which might be experienced when cold chain transport may be unavailable. We found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva from infected individuals is stable at 4{degrees}C, room temperature (~19{degrees}C), and 30{degrees}C for prolonged periods and found limited evidence for viral replication in saliva. This work demonstrates that expensive saliva collection options involving RNA stabilization and virus inactivation buffers are not always needed, permitting the use of cheaper collection options. Affordable testing methods are urgently needed to meet current testing demands and for continued surveillance in reopening strategies.

Longitudinal immunological analyses reveal inflammatory misfiring in severe COVID-19 patients (preprint)

Recent studies have provided insights into the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1-4. Yet, longitudinal immunological correlates of disease outcome remain unclear. Here, we serially analysed immune responses in 113 COVID-19 patients with moderate (non-ICU) and severe (ICU) disease. Immune profiling revealed an overall increase in innate cell lineages with a concomitant reduction in T cell number. We identify an association between early, elevated cytokines and worse disease outcomes. Following an early increase in cytokines, COVID-19 patients with moderate disease displayed a progressive reduction in type-1 (antiviral) and type-3 (antifungal) responses. In contrast, patients with severe disease maintained these elevated responses throughout the course of disease. Moreover, severe disease was accompanied by an increase in multiple type 2 (anti-helminths) effectors including, IL-5, IL-13, IgE and eosinophils. Unsupervised clustering analysis of plasma and peripheral blood leukocyte data identified 4 immune signatures, representing (A) growth factors, (B) type-2/3 cytokines, (C) mixed type-1/2/3 cytokines, and (D) chemokines that correlated with three distinct disease trajectories of patients. The immune profile of patients who recovered with moderate disease was enriched in tissue reparative growth factor signature (A), while the profile for those with worsened disease trajectory had elevated levels of all four signatures. Thus, we identified development of a maladapted immune response profile associated with severe COVID-19 outcome and early immune signatures that correlate with divergent disease trajectories.

Sex differences in immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 that underlie disease outcomes (preprint)

A growing body of evidence indicates sex differences in the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1-4. However, whether immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 differ between sexes, and whether such differences explain male susceptibility to COVID-19, is currently unknown. In this study, we examined sex differences in viral loads, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody titers, plasma cytokines, as well as blood cell phenotyping in COVID-19 patients. By focusing our analysis on patients with mild to moderate disease who had not received immunomodulatory medications, our results revealed that male patients had higher plasma levels of innate immune cytokines and chemokines including IL-8, IL-18, and CCL5, along with more robust induction of non-classical monocytes. In contrast, female patients mounted significantly more robust T cell activation than male patients during SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was sustained in old age. Importantly, we found that a poor T cell response negatively correlated with patients age and was predictive of worse disease outcome in male patients, but not in female patients. Conversely, higher innate immune cytokines in female patients associated with worse disease progression, but not in male patients. These findings reveal a possible explanation underlying observed sex biases in COVID-19, and provide important basis for the development of sex-based approach to the treatment and care of men and women with COVID-19.

Saliva is more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection in COVID-19 patients than nasopharyngeal swabs (preprint)

Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays (preprint)

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays are being used by clinical, research, and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to evaluate the primer-probe sets used in four common diagnostic assays available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. To facilitate this effort, we generated RNA transcripts to be used as assay standards and distributed them to other laboratories for internal validation. We then used (1) RNA transcript standards, (2) full-length SARS-CoV-2 RNA, (3) pre-COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs, and (4) clinical samples from COVID-19 patients to determine analytical efficiency and sensitivity of the qRT-PCR primer-probe sets. We show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 at 500 virus copies per reaction, except for the RdRp-SARSr (Charite) confirmatory primer-probe set which has low sensitivity. Our findings characterize the limitations of currently used primer-probe sets and can assist other laboratories in selecting appropriate assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.