ABSTRACT
Reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) is the standard method of diagnosing COVID-19. An inconclusive test result occurs when one RT-PCR target is positive for SARS-CoV-2 and one RT-PCR target is negative within the same sample. An inconclusive result generally requires retesting. One reason why a sample may yield an inconclusive result is that one target is at a higher concentration than another target. It was hypothesized that concentration differences across targets may be due to the transcription of sub-genomic RNA, as this would result in an increase in the concentration of gene targets near the 3 end of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. A panel of six digital droplet (dd)PCR assays was designed to quantitate the ORF1, E-gene, and N-gene of SARS-CoV-2. This panel was used to quantify viral cultures of SARS-CoV-2 that were harvested during the eclipse phase and at peak infectivity in such a way as to maximize gene-to-gene copy ratios. Eleven clinical nasopharyngeal swabs were also tested with this panel. In culture, infected cells showed higher N-gene/ORF1 copy ratios than culture supernatants. Both the highest specific infectivity (copies/pfu) and the highest differences between gene targets were observed at 6 hours post-infection (eclipse phase) in infected cells. The same trends in the relative abundance of copies across different targets observed in infected cells was observed in clinical samples, though trends were more pronounced in infected cells. This study showed that a greater copy number of N-gene relative to E-gene and ORF1 transcripts could potentially explain inconclusive results for some RT-PCR tests on low viral load samples. The use of N-gene RT-PCR target(s) as opposed to ORF1 targets for routine testing is supported by this data. Author SummaryThis paper provides insight into a drawback of the standard method of testing for COVID-19 (RT-PCR). The results presented here propose an explanation for why inconclusive results sometimes occur with this method. These results can aid microbiologists in the interpretation of inconclusive test results. These results can also aid in decisions about which COVID-19 test a laboratory should use, as there are a plethora of options available. This is important because this standard testing method will remain a critical tool - globally - for managing the COVID-19 pandemic and any future viral pandemics and epidemics. Thus, it is important to investigate every facet of the testing method. The findings presented here are applicable to any virus which makes sub-genomic transcripts as part of its life cycle. Trends observed in viral cultures are presented alongside the same trends observed in clinical samples. Unlike similar papers in the field, this paper did not strive to develop a new methodology or tool.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Few studies have assessed for infectious SARS-CoV-2 in multiple types of clinical and environmental samples. In almost 500 samples from 75 hospitalized and community cases, we detected infectious virus with quantitative burdens varying from 5.0 plaque-forming units/mL (PFU/mL) up to 1.0x106 PFU/mL in clinical specimens and up to 1.3x106 PFU/mL on fomites including facial tissues, nasal prongs, call bells/cell phones, dentures, and sputum deposits with confirmation by plaque morphology, PCR, immunohistochemistry, and sequencing. Expectorated sputum samples had the highest percentage of positive samples and virus titers (71%, 2.9x102 to 5.2x105 PFU/mL), followed by saliva (58%, 10 to 4.6x104 PFU/mL), and cough samples without sputum (19%, 5 to 1.9x103 PFU/mL). We also detected infectious SARS-CoV-2 from patients' hands (28%, 60 to 2.3x102 PFU/mL) but no infectious virus was found in continuous speech samples despite finding high levels of infectious virus in the associated nasopharynx, throat, or saliva specimens. We demonstrated infectious virus stability in clinical samples, including those dried for prolonged periods of time. Infectious virus correlated with time since symptom onset with no detection after 7-8 days in immunocompetent hosts and with N-gene based Ct values [≤]25 significantly predictive of yielding plaques in culture. One PFU was associated with ~105 copies of N gene RNA across a diversity of samples and times from symptom onset. Clinical salivary isolates caused illness in a hamster model with a minimum infectious dose of [≤]14 PFU/mL. Our findings of high quantitative burdens of infectious virus, stability even with drying, and a very low minimal infectious dose suggest multiple modes of transmission are exploited by SARS-CoV-2, including direct contact, large respiratory droplet, and fomite transmission and in the context of a high binding avidity to human cellular receptors, offer an explanation of the high contagiousness of this virus.
Subject(s)
Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary to protect front-line healthcare personnel. These shortages underscore the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate SARS-CoV-2-exposed PPE enabling safe reuse of masks and respirators. Efficient decontamination must be available not only in low-resourced settings, but also in well-resourced settings affected by PPE shortages. Methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, hitherto with many clinical applications including those used to inactivate virus in plasma, presents a novel approach for widely applicable PPE decontamination. Dry heat (DH) treatment is another potential low-cost decontamination method. MethodsMB and light (MBL) and DH treatments were used to inactivate coronavirus on respirator and mask material. We tested three N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), two medical masks (MMs), and one cloth community mask (CM). FFR/MM/CM materials were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 (a Betacoronavirus), murine hepatitis virus (MHV) (a Betacoronavirus), or porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) (an Alphacoronavirus), and treated with 10 {micro}M MB followed by 50,000 lux of broad-spectrum light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes, or with 75{degrees}C DH for 60 minutes. In parallel, we tested respirator and mask integrity using several standard methods and compared to the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. Intact FFRs/MMs/CM were subjected to five cycles of decontamination (5CD) to assess integrity using International Standardization Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) test methods. FindingsOverall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all three coronaviruses with at least a 4-log reduction. DH yielded similar results, with the exception of MHV, which was only reduced by 2-log after treatment. FFR/MM integrity was maintained for 5 cycles of MBL or DH treatment, whereas one FFR failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. Baseline performance for the CM was variable, but reduction of integrity was minimal. InterpretationMethylene blue with light and DH treatment decontaminated masks and respirators by inactivating three tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5CD. MBL decontamination of masks is effective, low-cost and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in all-resource settings. These attractive features support the utilization and continued development of this novel PPE decontamination method.