Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0256813, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1410652

ABSTRACT

There is a worldwide need for reagents to perform SARS-CoV-2 detection. Some laboratories have implemented kit-free protocols, but many others do not have the capacity to develop these and/or perform manual processing. We provide multiple workflows for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection in clinical samples by comparing several commercially available RNA extraction methods: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAgen), RNAdvance Blood/Viral (Beckman) and Mag-Bind Viral DNA/RNA 96 Kit (Omega Bio-tek). We also compared One-step RT-qPCR reagents: TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix (FastVirus, ThermoFisher Scientific), qPCRBIO Probe 1-Step Go Lo-ROX (PCR Biosystems) and Luna® Universal Probe One-Step RT-qPCR Kit (Luna, NEB). We used primer-probes that detect viral N (EUA CDC) and RdRP. RNA extraction methods provided similar results, with Beckman performing better with our primer-probe combinations. Luna proved most sensitive although overall the three reagents did not show significant differences. N detection was more reliable than that of RdRP, particularly in samples with low viral titres. Importantly, we demonstrated that heat treatment of nasopharyngeal swabs at 70°C for 10 or 30 min, or 90°C for 10 or 30 min (both original variant and B 1.1.7) inactivated SARS-CoV-2 employing plaque assays, and had minimal impact on the sensitivity of the qPCR in clinical samples. These findings make SARS-CoV-2 testing portable in settings that do not have CL-3 facilities. In summary, we provide several testing pipelines that can be easily implemented in other laboratories and have made all our protocols and SOPs freely available at https://osf.io/uebvj/.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Hot Temperature , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Virus Inactivation , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Epidemics/prevention & control , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reproducibility of Results , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods , Workflow
2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 10629, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387475

ABSTRACT

Delirium is an acute change in attention and cognition occurring in ~ 65% of severe SARS-CoV-2 cases. It is also common following surgery and an indicator of brain vulnerability and risk for the development of dementia. In this work we analyzed the underlying role of metabolism in delirium-susceptibility in the postoperative setting using metabolomic profiling of cerebrospinal fluid and blood taken from the same patients prior to planned orthopaedic surgery. Distance correlation analysis and Random Forest (RF) feature selection were used to determine changes in metabolic networks. We found significant concentration differences in several amino acids, acylcarnitines and polyamines linking delirium-prone patients to known factors in Alzheimer's disease such as monoamine oxidase B (MAOB) protein. Subsequent computational structural comparison between MAOB and angiotensin converting enzyme 2 as well as protein-protein docking analysis showed that there potentially is strong binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to MAOB. The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 influences MAOB activity leading to the observed neurological and platelet-based complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/metabolism , Delirium/metabolism , Monoamine Oxidase/metabolism , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Metabolomics
3.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 28(1): 93-100, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356178

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To analyse nosocomial transmission in the early stages of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at a large multisite healthcare institution. Nosocomial incidence is linked with infection control interventions. METHODS: Viral genome sequence and epidemiological data were analysed for 574 consecutive patients, including 86 nosocomial cases, with a positive PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the first 19 days of the pandemic. RESULTS: Forty-four putative transmission clusters were found through epidemiological analysis; these included 234 cases and all 86 nosocomial cases. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences were obtained from 168/234 (72%) of these cases in epidemiological clusters, including 77/86 nosocomial cases (90%). Only 75/168 (45%) of epidemiologically linked, sequenced cases were not refuted by applying genomic data, creating 14 final clusters accounting for 59/77 sequenced nosocomial cases (77%). Viral haplotypes from these clusters were enriched 1-14x (median 4x) compared to the community. Three factors implicated unidentified cases in transmission: (a) community-onset or indeterminate cases were absent in 7/14 clusters (50%), (b) four clusters (29%) had additional evidence of cryptic transmission, and (c) in three clusters (21%) diagnosis of the earliest case was delayed, which may have facilitated transmission. Nosocomial cases decreased to low levels (0-2 per day) despite continuing high numbers of admissions of community-onset SARS-CoV-2 cases (40-50 per day) and before the impact of introducing universal face masks and banning hospital visitors. CONCLUSION: Genomics was necessary to accurately resolve transmission clusters. Our data support unidentified cases-such as healthcare workers or asymptomatic patients-as important vectors of transmission. Evidence is needed to ascertain whether routine screening increases case ascertainment and limits nosocomial transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Genome, Viral , Genomics , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics
4.
Lancet Microbe ; 2(9): e461-e471, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294386

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rapid antigen testing are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing, although their reduced sensitivity compared with PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is, therefore, essential for successful implementation. We evaluated six commercial LFDs and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. METHODS: In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we did a head-to-head comparison of six LFDs commercially available in the UK: Innova Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test, Spring Healthcare SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette, E25Bio Rapid Diagnostic Test, Encode SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Device, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Cassette, and SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Fluorescence Antigen Test. We estimated the specificities and sensitivities of the LFDs using stored naso-oropharyngeal swabs collected at St Thomas' Hospital (London, UK) for routine diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing by real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR). Swabs were from inpatients and outpatients from all departments of St Thomas' Hospital, and from health-care staff (all departments) and their household contacts. SARS-CoV-2-negative swabs from the same population (confirmed by RT-rtPCR) were used for comparative specificity determinations. All samples were collected between March 23 and Oct 27, 2020. We determined the limit of detection (LOD) for each test using viral plaque-forming units (PFUs) and viral RNA copy numbers of laboratory-grown SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, LFDs were selected to assess the correlation of antigen test result with RT-rtPCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero E6 cells. This analysis included longitudinal swabs from five infected inpatients with varying disease severities. Furthermore, the sensitivities of available LFDs were assessed in swabs (n=23; collected from Dec 4, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021) confirmed to be positive (RT-rtPCR and whole-genome sequencing) for the B.1.1.7 variant, which was the dominant genotype in the UK at the time of study completion. FINDINGS: All LFDs showed high specificity (≥98·0%), except for the E25Bio test (86·0% [95% CI 77·9-99·9]), and most tests reliably detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent SARS-CoV-2 N gene Ct value of 23·7, or RNA copy number of 3 × 106/mL). Sensitivities of the LFDs on clinical samples ranged from 65·0% (55·2-73·6) to 89·0% (81·4-93·8). These sensitivities increased to greater than 90% for samples with Ct values of lower than 25 for all tests except the SureScreen fluorescence (SureScreen-F) test. Positive virus culture was identified in 57 (40·4%) of 141 samples; 54 (94·7%) of the positive cultures were from swabs with Ct values lower than 25. Among the three LFDs selected for detailed comparisons (the tests with highest sensitivity [Innova], highest specificity [Encode], and alternative technology [SureScreen-F]), sensitivity of the LFDs increased to at least 94·7% when only including samples with detected viral growth. Longitudinal studies of RT-rtPCR-positive samples (tested with Innova, Encode, and both SureScreen-F and the SureScreen visual [SureScreen-V] test) showed that most of the tests identified all infectious samples as positive. Test performance (assessed for Innova and SureScreen-V) was not affected when reassessed on swabs positive for the UK variant B.1.1.7. INTERPRETATION: In this comprehensive comparison of antigen LFDs and virus infectivity, we found a clear relationship between Ct values, quantitative culture of infectious virus, and antigen LFD positivity in clinical samples. Our data support regular testing of target groups with LFDs to supplement the current PCR testing capacity, which would help to rapidly identify infected individuals in situations in which they would otherwise go undetected. FUNDING: King's Together Rapid COVID-19, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Huo Family Foundation, UK Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , RNA, Viral/genetics
5.
J Clin Virol Plus ; 1(3): 100025, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1253163

ABSTRACT

A new variant of SARS-CoV-2 (Lineage B.1.1.7) was identified in the UK in December 2020 which was associated with higher transmissibility of COVID-19. The AusDiagnostics SARS-CoV-2, Influenza and RSV 8-well assay is used at sixteen UK hospitals and detects part of the ORF8 gene (together with a segment from the ORF1a gene). The objective of this study was to determine if the recently identified mutation in ORF8 (G28048T) in the B.1.1.7. lineage could be used to identify the new variant quickly in clinical cases with PCR positive results. The melt data from SARS-CoV-2 positives from two hospitals (October through December 2020) were reviewed, and distribution over time and location was evaluated. A low melt variant of the ORF8 amplicon started to appear in samples from Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust, London, at the start of November, and grew as a proportion of the total positives during the subsequent two months. These low melt variants were very rare during the same period at the Northern Care Alliance, Greater Manchester, North West of UK. It was confirmed that these carried the G28048T mutation. The geographic and temporal distribution of the low melt amplicons makes it very likely that these are lineage B.1.1.7 strains. The melt temperature of this amplicon could be used to discriminate between the original and new variants in advance of the full sequencing of the isolate. However, the appearance of other mutations in the same amplicon means that this approach would be of diminishing value over time.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL