Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Microbiol Spectr ; : e0169522, 2022 Oct 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2063983

ABSTRACT

Biomedical personnel can become contaminated with nonhazardous reagents used in the laboratory. We describe molecular studies performed on nasal secretions collected longitudinally from asymptomatic laboratory coworkers to determine if they were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) circulating in the community or with SARS-CoV-2 DNA from a plasmid vector. Participants enrolled in a prospective study of incident SARS-CoV-2 infection had nasal swabs collected aseptically by study staff at enrollment, followed by weekly self-collection of anterior nasal swabs. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was performed by a real-time PCR test targeting the nucleocapsid gene. PCR tests targeting SARS-CoV-2 nonstructural protein 10 (nsp10), nsp14, and envelope and three regions of the plasmid vector were performed to differentiate amplification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from the plasmid vector's DNA. Nasal swabs from four asymptomatic coworkers with positive real-time PCR results for the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid targets were negative when tested for SARS-CoV-2 nsp10, nsp14, and envelope protein. However, nucleic acids extracted from these nasal swabs amplified DNA regions of the plasmid vector used by the coworkers, including the ampicillin and neomycin/kanamycin resistance genes, the promoter-nucleocapsid junction, and unique codon-optimized regions. Nasal swabs from these individuals tested positive repeatedly, including during isolation. Longitudinal detection of plasmid DNA with SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid in nasal swabs suggests persistence in nasal tissues or colonizing bacteria. Nonviral plasmid vectors, while regarded as safe laboratory reagents, can interfere with molecular diagnostic tests. These reagents should be handled using proper personal protective equipment to prevent contamination of samples or laboratory personnel. IMPORTANCE Asymptomatic laboratory workers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 for days to months were found to harbor a laboratory plasmid vector containing SARS-CoV-2 DNA, which they had worked with in the past, in their nasal secretions. While prior studies have documented contamination of research personnel with PCR amplicons, our observation is novel, as these individuals shed the laboratory plasmid over days to months, including during isolation in their homes. This suggests that the plasmid was in their nasal tissues or that bacteria containing the plasmid had colonized their noses. While plasmids are generally safe, our detection of plasmid DNA in the nasal secretions of laboratory workers for weeks after they had stopped working with the plasmid shows the potential for these reagents to interfere with clinical tests and emphasizes that occupational exposures in the preceding months should be considered when interpreting diagnostic clinical tests.

2.
PLoS One ; 17(9): e0274078, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043204

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections may contribute to ongoing community transmission, however, the benefit of routine screening of asymptomatic individuals in low-risk populations is unclear. METHODS: To identify SARS-CoV-2 infections 553 seronegative individuals were prospectively followed for 52 weeks. From 4/2020-7/2021, participants submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs for rtPCR and completed symptom and exposure surveys. RESULTS: Incident SARS2-CoV-2 infections were identified in 9/553 (1.6%) participants. Comparisons of SARS2-CoV-2(+) to SARS2-CoV-2(-) participants revealed significantly more close contacts outside the household (median: 5 versus 3; p = 0.005). The incidence of infection was higher among unvaccinated/partially vaccinated than among fully vaccinated participants (9/7,679 versus 0/6,845 person-weeks; p = 0.004). At notification of positive test result, eight cases were symptomatic and one pre-symptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that weekly SARS2-CoV2 surveillance by rtPCR did not efficiently detect pre-symptomatic infections in unvaccinated participants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Humans , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
3.
Analyst ; 147(14): 3315-3327, 2022 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1908309

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted routine care for individuals living with HIV, putting them at risk of virologic failure and HIV-associated illness. Often this population is at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and once infected, for severe disease. Therefore, close monitoring of HIV plasma viral load (VL) and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection are needed. We developed a non-proprietary method to isolate RNA from plasma, nasal secretions (NS), or both. The extracted RNA is then submitted to RT-qPCR to estimate the VL and classify HIV/SARS-CoV-2 status (i.e., HIV virologic failure or suppressed; SARS-CoV-2 as positive, presumptive positive, negative, or indeterminate). In contrived samples, the in-house RNA extraction workflow achieved a detection limit of 200-copies per mL for HIV RNA in plasma and 100-copies per mL for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in NS. Similar detection limits were observed for HIV and SARS-CoV-2 in pooled plasma/NS contrived samples. When comparing in-house with standard extraction methods, we found high agreement (>0.91) between input and measured RNA copies for HIV LTR in contrived plasma; SARS-CoV-2 N1/N2 in contrived NS; and LTR, N1, and N2 in pooled plasma/NS samples. We further evaluated this workflow on 133 clinical specimens: 40 plasma specimens (30 HIV-positive), 67 NS specimens (31 SARS-CoV-2-positive), and 26 combined plasma/NS specimens (26 HIV-positive with 10 SARS-CoV-2-positive), and compared the results obtained using the in-house RNA extraction to those using a commercial kit (standard extraction method). The in-house extraction and standard extraction of clinical specimens were positively correlated: plasma HIV VL (R2 of 0.81) and NS SARS-CoV-2 VL (R2 of 0.95 and 0.99 for N1 and N2 genes, respectively); and pooled plasma/NS HIV VL (R2 of 0.71) and SARS-CoV-2 VL (R2 of 1 both for N1 and N2 genes). Our low-cost molecular test workflow ($1.85 per pooled sample extraction) for HIV RNA and SARS-CoV-2 RNA could serve as an alternative to current standard assays ($12 per pooled sample extraction) for laboratories in low-resource settings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , HIV Infections/diagnosis , Humans , Pandemics , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load/methods , Workflow
5.
EBioMedicine ; 64: 103236, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083288

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections is important for treatment, isolation of infected and exposed individuals, and contact tracing. RT-qPCR is the "gold-standard" method to sensitively detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, but most laboratory-developed RT-qPCR assays involve complex steps. Here, we aimed to simplify RT-qPCR assays by streamlining reaction setup, eliminating RNA extraction, and proposing reduced-cost detection workflows that avoid the need for expensive qPCR instruments. METHOD: A low-cost RT-PCR based "kit" was developed for faster turnaround than the CDC developed protocol. We demonstrated three detection workflows: two that can be deployed in laboratories conducting assays of variable complexity, and one that could be simple enough for point-of-care. Analytical sensitivity was assessed using SARS-CoV-2 RNA spiked in simulated nasal matrix. Clinical performance was evaluated using contrived human nasal matrix (n = 41) and clinical nasal specimens collected from individuals with respiratory symptoms (n = 110). FINDING: The analytical sensitivity of the lyophilised RT-PCR was 10 copies/reaction using purified SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 20 copies/reaction when using direct lysate in simulated nasal matrix. Evaluation of assay performance on contrived human matrix showed 96.7-100% specificity and 100% sensitivity at ≥20 RNA copies. A head-to-head comparison with the standard CDC protocol on clinical specimens showed 83.8-94.6% sensitivity and 96.8-100% specificity. We found 3.6% indeterminate samples (undetected human control), lower than 8.1% with the standard protocol. INTERPRETATION: This preliminary work should support laboratories or commercial entities to develop and expand access to Covid-19 testing. Software guidance development for this assay is ongoing to enable implementation in other settings. FUND: USA NIH R01AI140845 and Seattle Children's Research Institute.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 , RNA, Viral/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/genetics , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL