Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 isolation in cell culture from nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva specimens of patients with COVID-19.

It has been revealed that SARS-CoV-2 can be efficiently isolated from clinical specimens such as nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva in cultured cells. In this study, we examined the efficiency of viral isolation including SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains between nasal/nasopharyngeal swab or saliva specimens. Furthermore, we also examined the comparison of viral isolation rates by sample species using simulated specimens for COVID-19. As a result, it was found that the isolation efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva specimens was significantly lower than that in the nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens. In order to determine which component of saliva is responsible for the lower isolation rate of saliva specimens, we tested the abilities of lactoferrin, amylase, cathelicidin, and mucin, which are considered to be abundant in saliva, to inhibit the infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped viruses (SARS-CoV-2pv). Lactoferrin and amylase were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2pv infection. In conclusion, even if the same number of viral genome copies was detected by the real-time RT-PCR test, infection of SARS-CoV-2 present in saliva is thought to be inhibited by inhibitory factors such as lactoferrin and amylase, compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens.

SERS Signature of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: Towards Perspective COVID-19 Point-of-Care Diagnostics.

In this study, the intrinsic surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS)-based approach coupled with chemometric analysis was adopted to establish the biochemical fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 infected human fluids: saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. The numerical methods, partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) and support vector machine classification (SVMC), facilitated the spectroscopic identification of the viral-specific molecules, molecular changes, and distinct physiological signatures of pathetically altered fluids. Next, we developed the reliable classification model for fast identification and differentiation of negative CoV(-) and positive CoV(+) groups. The PLS-DA calibration model was described by a great statistical value-RMSEC and RMSECV below 0.3 and R2cal at the level of ~0.7 for both type of body fluids. The calculated diagnostic parameters for SVMC and PLS-DA at the stage of preparation of calibration model and classification of external samples simulating real diagnostic conditions evinced high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for saliva specimens. Here, we outlined the significant role of neopterin as the biomarker in the prediction of COVID-19 infection from nasopharyngeal swab. We also observed the increased content of nucleic acids of DNA/RNA and proteins such as ferritin as well as specific immunoglobulins. The developed SERS for SARS-CoV-2 approach allows: (i) fast, simple and non-invasive collection of analyzed specimens; (ii) fast response with the time of analysis below 15 min, and (iii) sensitive and reliable SERS-based screening of COVID-19 disease.

Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types. METHODS: We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test. RESULTS: Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals.

Accuracy of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection in outpatients and their household contacts during the circulation of the Omicron variant of concern.

BACKGROUND: While nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the gold standard for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection, several studies have shown that saliva is an alternative specimen for COVID-19 diagnosis and screening. METHODS: To analyze the utility of saliva for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the circulation of the Omicron variant, participants were enrolled in an ongoing cohort designed to assess the natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults and children. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Cohen's kappa coefficient were calculated to assess diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Overall, 818 samples were collected from 365 outpatients from January 3 to February 2, 2022. The median age was 32.8 years (range: 3-94 years). RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in 97/121 symptomatic patients (80.2%) and 62/244 (25.4%) asymptomatic patients. Substantial agreement between saliva and combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples was observed with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.81]. Sensitivity was 77% (95% CI: 70.9-82.2), specificity 95% (95% CI: 91.9-97), PPV 89.8% (95% CI: 83.1-94.4), NPV 87.9% (95% CI: 83.6-91.5), and accuracy 88.5% (95% CI: 85.0-91.4). Sensitivity was higher among samples collected from symptomatic children aged three years and older and adolescents [84% (95% CI: 70.5-92)] with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Saliva is a reliable fluid for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially in symptomatic children and adolescents during the circulation of the Omicron variant.

Pooled RNA-extraction-free testing of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

The key to limiting SARS-CoV-2 spread is to identify virus-infected individuals (both symptomatic and asymptomatic) and isolate them from the general population. Hence, routine weekly testing for SARS-CoV-2 in all asymptomatic (capturing both infected and non-infected) individuals is considered critical in situations where a large number of individuals co-congregate such as schools, prisons, aged care facilities and industrial workplaces. Such testing is hampered by operational issues such as cost, test availability, access to healthcare workers and throughput. We developed the SalivaDirect RT-qPCR assay to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing via a low-cost, streamlined protocol using self-collected saliva. To expand the single sample testing protocol, we explored multiple extraction-free pooled saliva testing workflows prior to testing with the SalivaDirect RT-qPCR assay. A pool size of five, with or without heat inactivation at 65 °C for 15 min prior to testing resulted in a positive agreement of 98% and 89%, respectively, and an increased Ct value shift of 1.37 and 1.99 as compared to individual testing of the positive clinical saliva specimens. Applying this shift in Ct value to 316 individual, sequentially collected, SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva specimen results reported from six clinical laboratories using the original SalivaDirect assay, 100% of the samples would have been detected (Ct value < 45) had they been tested in the 1:5 pool strategy. The availability of multiple pooled testing workflows for laboratories can increase test turnaround time, permitting results in a more actionable time frame while minimizing testing costs and changes to laboratory operational flow.

Utilization of a Glucometer Test Strip and Enzymatic Reactions to Quantify Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike RBD IgG Antibody and SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Saliva and Serum.

A sensor capable of quantifying both anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody levels and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus in saliva and serum was developed. This was accomplished by exploiting the enzymatic reaction of maltose and orthophosphate (PO43-) in the presence of maltose phosphorylase to generate an equivalent amount of glucose that was detected using a commercial glucometer test strip and a potentiostat. Important for this approach is the ability to generate PO43- in an amount that is directly related to the concentration of the analytes. RBD-modified magnetic microparticles were used to capture anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD antibodies, while particles modified with anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies were used to capture SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein from inactivated virus samples. A magnet was used to isolate and purify the magnetic microparticles (with analyte attached), and alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibodies were bound to the analytes attached to the respective magnetic microparticles. Finally, through enzymatic reactions, specific amounts of PO43- (and subsequently glucose) were generated in proportion to the analyte concentration, which was then quantified using a commercial glucometer test strip. Utilizing glucose test strips makes the sensor relatively inexpensive, with a cost per test of ∼US $7 and ∼US $12 for quantifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD antibody and SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Our sensor exhibited a limit of detection of 0.42 ng/mL for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD antibody, which is sensitive enough to quantify typical concentrations of antibodies in COVID-19-infected or vaccinated individuals (>1 µg/mL). The limit of detection for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 300 pfu/mL (5.4 × 106 RNA copies/mL), which exceeds the performance recommended by the WHO (500 pfu/mL). In addition, the sensor exhibited good selectivity when challenged with competing analytes and could be used to quantify analytes in saliva and serum matrices with an accuracy of >94% compared to RT-qPCR.

Saliva microRNA Profile in Children with and without Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may impair immune modulating host microRNAs, causing severe disease. Our objectives were to determine the salivary miRNA profile in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection at presentation and compare the expression in those with and without severe outcomes. Children <18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection evaluated at two hospitals between March 2021 and February 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Severe outcomes included respiratory failure, shock or death. Saliva microRNAs were quantified with RNA sequencing. Data on 197 infected children (severe = 45) were analyzed. Of the known human miRNAs, 1606 (60%) were measured and compared across saliva samples. There were 43 miRNAs with ≥2-fold difference between severe and non-severe cases (adjusted p-value < 0.05). The majority (31/43) were downregulated in severe cases. The largest between-group differences involved miR-4495, miR-296-5p, miR-548ao-3p and miR-1273c. These microRNAs displayed enrichment for 32 gene ontology pathways including viral processing and transforming growth factor beta and Fc-gamma receptor signaling. In conclusion, salivary miRNA levels are perturbed in children with severe COVID-19, with the majority of miRNAs being down regulated. Further studies are required to validate and determine the utility of salivary miRNAs as biomarkers of severe COVID-19.

Saliva is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection after vaccination: A rapid systematic review.

Since the introduction of efficient vaccines anti-SARS-CoV-2, antibody quantification becomes increasingly useful for immunological monitoring and COVID-19 control. In several situations, saliva samples may be an alternative to the serological test. Thus, this rapid systematic review aimed to evaluate if saliva is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection after vaccination. For this purpose, search strategies were applied at EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Studies were selected by two reviewers in a two-phase process. After selection, 15 studies were eligible and included in data synthesis. In total, salivary samples of approximately 1,080 vaccinated and/or convalescent individuals were analyzed. The applied vaccines were mostly mRNA-based (BioNTech 162b2 mRNA/Pfizer and Spikevax mRNA-1273/Moderna), but recombinant viral-vectored vaccines (Ad26. COV2. S Janssen - Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria/Oxford AstraZeneca) were also included. Different techniques were applied for saliva evaluation, such as ELISA assay, Multiplex immunoassay, flow cytometry, neutralizing and electrochemical assays. Although antibody titers are lower in saliva than in serum, the results showed that saliva is suitable for antibody detection. The mean of reported correlations for titers in saliva and serum/plasma were moderate for IgG (0.55, 95% CI 0.38-9.73), and weak for IgA (0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.44). Additionally, six out of nine studies reported numerical titers for immunoglobulins detection, from which the level in saliva reached their reference value in four (66%). IgG but not IgA are frequently presented in saliva from vaccinated anti-COVID-19. Four studies reported lower IgA salivary titers in vaccinated compared to previously infected individuals, otherwise, two reported higher titers of IgA in vaccinated. Concerning IgG, two studies reported high antibody titers in the saliva of vaccinated individuals compared to those previously infected and one presented similar results for vaccinated and infected. The detection of antibodies anti-SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva is available, which suggests this type of sample is a suitable alternative for monitoring the population. Thus, the results also pointed out the possible lack of mucosal immunity induction after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. It highlights the importance of new vaccination strategies also focused on mucosal alternatives directly on primary routes of SARS-CoV-2 entrance. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022336968, identifier CRD42022336968.

Scent dog identification of SARS-CoV-2 infections in different body fluids.

BACKGROUND: The main strategy to contain the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic remains to implement a comprehensive testing, tracing and quarantining strategy until vaccination of the population is adequate. Scent dogs could support current testing strategies. METHODS: Ten dogs were trained for 8 days to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in beta-propiolactone inactivated saliva samples. The subsequent cognitive transfer performance for the recognition of non-inactivated samples were tested on three different body fluids (saliva, urine, and sweat) in a randomised, double-blind controlled study. RESULTS: Dogs were tested on a total of 5242 randomised sample presentations. Dogs detected non-inactivated saliva samples with a diagnostic sensitivity of 84% (95% CI: 62.5-94.44%) and specificity of 95% (95% CI: 93.4-96%). In a subsequent experiment to compare the scent recognition between the three non-inactivated body fluids, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI: 66.67-100%) and 98% (95% CI: 94.87-100%) for urine, 91% (95% CI: 71.43-100%) and 94% (95% CI: 90.91-97.78%) for sweat, 82% (95% CI: 64.29-95.24%), and 96% (95% CI: 94.95-98.9%) for saliva respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The scent cognitive transfer performance between inactivated and non-inactivated samples as well as between different sample materials indicates that global, specific SARS-CoV-2-associated volatile compounds are released across different body secretions, independently from the patient's symptoms. All tested body fluids appear to be similarly suited for reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals.

Beads- and oil-free single molecule assay with immuno-rolling circle amplification for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva.

Digital enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) can be used to detect various antigens such as spike (S) or nucleocapsid (N) proteins of SARS-CoV-2, with much higher sensitivity compared to that achievable using conventional antigen tests. However, the use of microbeads and oil for compartmentalization in these assays limits their user-friendliness and causes loss of assay information due to the loss of beads during the process. To improve the sensitivity of antigen test, here, we developed an oil- and bead-free single molecule counting assay, with rolling circle amplification (RCA) on a substrate. With RCA, the signal is localized at the captured region of an antigen, and the signal from a single antigen molecule can be visualized using the same immune-reaction procedures as in the conventional ELISA. Substrate-based single molecule assay was theoretically evaluated for kd value, and the concentration of capture and detection antibodies. As a feasibility test, biotin-conjugated primer and mouse IgG conjugates were detected even at femto-molar concentrations with this digital immuno-RCA. Using this method, we detected the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 with a limit of detection less than 1 pg/mL more than 100-fold improvement compared to the detection using conventional ELISA. Furthermore, testing of saliva samples from COVID-19 patients and healthy controls (n = 50) indicated the applicability of the proposed method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with 99.5% specificity and 90.9% sensitivity.

Accurate prediction of serum antibody levels from noninvasive saliva/nasal samples.

The importance of easily accessible, noninvasive samples, such as saliva, to effectively monitor serum antibody levels has been underscored by the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although a correlation between saliva and serum antibody titers has been observed, the ability to predict serum antibody levels from measurements in saliva is not well established. Herein, the authors demonstrate that measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in both saliva and nasal specimens can be used to accurately determine serum levels by utilizing endogenous total IgG as an internal calibrator. They postulate that this method can be extended to the measurement of many different antibody analytes, making it of high interest for antibody therapeutic drug monitoring applications.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and determinants for salivary seropositivity among pupils and school staff: a prospective cohort study.

Representative school data on SARS-CoV-2 past-infection are scarce, and differences between pupils and staff remain ambiguous. We performed a nation-wide prospective seroprevalence study among pupils and staff over time and in relation to determinants of infection using Poisson regression and generalised estimating equations. A cluster random sample was selected with allocation by region and sociodemographic (SES) background. Surveys and saliva samples were collected in December 2020, March, and June 2021, and also in October and December 2021 for primary pupils. We recruited 885 primary and 569 secondary pupils and 799 staff in 84 schools. Cumulative seroprevalence (95% CI) among primary pupils increased from 11.0% (7.6; 15.9) at baseline to 60.4% (53.4; 68.3) in December 2021. Group estimates were similar at baseline; however, in June they were significantly higher among primary staff (38.9% (32.5; 46.4)) compared to pupils and secondary staff (24.2% (20.3; 28.8)). Infections were asymptomatic in 48-56% of pupils and 28% of staff. Seropositivity was associated with individual SES in pupils, and with school level, school SES and language network in staff in June. Associations with behavioural characteristics were inconsistent. Seroconversion rates increased two- to four-fold after self-reported high-risk contacts, especially with adults. Seroprevalence studies using non-invasive sampling can inform public health management.

Correlation of Redondovirus and Entamoeba gingivalis Detections in the Human Oral Cavity Suggests That This Amoeba Is Possibly the Redondovirus Host.

The virome of the human oral cavity and the relationships between viruses and diseases such as periodontitis are scarcely deciphered. Redondoviruses were reported in the human oral cavity in 2019, including in periodontitis patients. Here, we aimed at detecting redondoviruses and at searching for a potential viral host in human saliva. Non-stimulated saliva was collected between December 2020 and June 2021. These samples were tested using real-time PCR regarding the presence of redondovirus and Entamoeba gingivalis DNA. Similarity searches were performed using BLAST against eukaryotic and prokaryotic sequences from GenBank. The redondovirus DNA was detected in 46% of the 28 human saliva samples. In addition, short fragments of redondovirus genomes were detected in silico within Entamoeba sequences. Finally, Entamoeba gingivalis DNA was detected in 46% of the 28 saliva samples, with a strong correlation between redondovirus DNA and E. gingivalis DNA detections, in 93% of the cases. Regarded together, these findings and previous ones strongly support the presence of redondoviruses in the human oral cavity and their association to E. gingivalis as their likely host.

Optimization and Improvement of qPCR Detection Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been a major public health threat globally, especially during the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is utilized for viral RNA detection as part of control measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. Collecting nasopharyngeal swabs for RT-qPCR is a routine diagnostic method for COVID-19 in clinical settings, but its large-scale implementation is hindered by a shortage of trained health professionals. Despite concerns over its sensitivity, saliva has been suggested as a practical alternative sampling approach to the nasopharyngeal swab for viral RNA detection. In this study, we spiked saliva from healthy donors with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 from an international standard to evaluate the effect of saliva on viral RNA detection. On average, the saliva increased the cycle threshold (CT) values of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA samples by 2.64 compared to the viral RNA in viral transport medium. Despite substantial variation among different donors in the effect of saliva on RNA quantification, the outcome of the RT-qPCR diagnosis was largely unaffected for viral RNA samples with CT values of <35 (1.55 log10 IU/mL). The saliva-treated viral RNA remained stable for up to 6 h at room temperature and 24 h at 4°C. Further supplementing protease and RNase inhibitors improved the detection of viral RNA in the saliva samples. Our data provide practical information on the storage conditions of saliva samples and suggest optimized sampling procedures for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. IMPORTANCE The primary method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 is using nasopharyngeal swabs, but a shortage of trained health professionals has hindered its large-scale implementation. Saliva-based nucleic acid detection is a widely adopted alternative, due to its convenience and minimally invasive nature, but the detection limit and direct impact of saliva on viral RNA remain poorly understood. To address this gap in knowledge, we used a WHO international standard to evaluate the effect of saliva on SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. We describe the detection profile of saliva-treated SARS-CoV-2 samples under different storage temperatures and incubation periods. We also found that adding protease and RNase inhibitors could improve viral RNA detection in saliva. Our research provides practical recommendations for the optimal storage conditions and sampling procedures for saliva-based testing, which can improve the efficiency of COVID-19 testing and enhance public health responses to the pandemic.

Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections.

Background: Nasal swabs and saliva samples are being considered alternatives to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, few studies have compared the usefulness of nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. We compared the positivity rates and concentrations of viruses detected in nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time PCR tests for respiratory viruses. Methods: In total, 236 samples (48 five-rub and 10 10-rub nasal swabs, 96 NPSs collected using two different products, 48 saliva swabs, and 34 undiluted saliva samples) from 48 patients (34 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 14 with other respiratory virus infections) and 40 samples from eight healthy controls were obtained. The PCR positivity and Ct values were compared using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR. Results: NPSs showed the lowest Ct values (indicating the highest virus concentrations); however, nasal and saliva samples yielded positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. The median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 E gene PCR using nasal swab samples collected with 10 rubs was significantly different from that obtained using nasal swabs collected with five rubs (Ct=24.3 vs. 28.9; P=0.002), but not from that obtained using NPSs. Conclusions: Our results confirm that the NPS is the best sample type for detecting respiratory viruses, but nasal swabs and saliva samples can be alternatives to NPSs. Vigorously and sufficiently rubbed nasal swabs can provide SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those obtained with NPSs.

A Direct Catalytic Ethanol Fuel Cell (DCEFC) Modified by LDHs, or by Catalase-LDHs, and Improvement in Its Kinetic Performance: Applications for Human Saliva and Disinfectant Products for COVID-19.

In this work, it has been experimentally proven that the kinetic performance of a common Direct Catalytic Ethanol Fuel Cell (DCEFC) can be increased by introducing nanostructured (ZnII,AlIII(OH)2)+NO3-·H2O Layered Double Hydroxides (LDHs) into the anode compartment. Carrying out the measurements with the open-circuit voltage method and using a kinetic format, it has been shown that the introduction of LDHs in the anodic compartment implies a 1.3-fold increase in the calibration sensitivity of the method. This improvement becomes even greater in the presence of hydrogen peroxide in a solution. Furthermore, we show that the calibration sensitivity increased by 8-times, when the fuel cell is modified by the enzyme catalase, crosslinked on LDHs and in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The fuel cell, thus modified (with or without enzyme), has been used for analytical applications on real samples, such as biological (human saliva) and hand disinfectant samples, commonly used for the prevention of COVID-19, obtaining very positive results from both analytical and kinetic points of view on ethanol detection. Moreover, if the increase in the calibration sensitivity is of great importance from the point of view of analytical applications, it must be remarked that the increase in the speed of the ethanol oxidation process in the fuel cell can also be extremely useful for the purposes of improving the energy performance of a DCEFC.

Diagnostic Performance and Tolerability of Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.

Saliva is a promising alternative for a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) in specimen collection to detect SARS-CoV-2. We compared the diagnostic performance and tolerability of saliva collection versus NPS in a clinical setting. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected sequentially from participants (n = 250) at the Turku University Hospital drive-in coronavirus testing station in the spring of 2022, with Omicron BA.2 as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant. Discomfort and preference for the sampling method were assessed. The specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) with a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial kits (PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 and PerkinElmer SARS-CoV-2 Plus) for several target genes. Among the 250 participants, 246 had respiratory symptoms. With LDT, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 135 and 134 participants from NPS and saliva, respectively. Of the 250 specimens, 11 gave a discordant outcome, resulting in excellent agreement between the specimen types (Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.911; P = 0.763). The cycle threshold (CT) values of LDT and commercial kit target genes were significantly lower from NPS than from saliva. A total of 172 (69%) participants assessed saliva sampling as more tolerable than NPS (P < 0.0001). Our findings present saliva as an applicable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. However, the lower CT values obtained from NPS indicate that NPS may be a slightly more sensitive specimen type. Participants preferred saliva sampling, although delivering an adequate volume of saliva was challenging for some participants. IMPORTANCE The extensive testing of SARS-CoV-2 is vital in controlling the spread of COVID-19. The reference standard for specimen collection is a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, the discomfort of NPS sampling, the risk of nosocomial infections, and global material shortages have accelerated the development of alternative testing methods. Our study demonstrates that patients tolerate saliva sampling better than NPS. Of importance, although the RT-PCR qualitative test results seem to correspond between NPS and saliva, we show significantly lower CT values for NPS, compared to saliva, thus contradicting the suggested superiority of the saliva specimen over NPS in the detection of the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Future research is still required to enable individual planning for specimen collection and to determine the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on the sensitivity of the saliva matrix.

Saliva and Plasma Antibody Levels in Children and Adolescents After Primary Infection With Omicron Variants of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Germany.

This cross-sectional study evaluates IgG antibody levels in children and adolescents in Germany following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Association between soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in saliva and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cross-sectional study.

This study aimed to investigate the association between saliva soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (sACE2) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in children and adults. We selected a convenience sample of adults with post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and their household children living in quarantined family households of the metropolitan Barcelona region (Spain) during the spring 2020 pandemic national lockdown. Participants were tested for saliva sACE2 quantification by western blot and nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR detection. A total of 161 saliva samples [82 (50.9%) from children; 79 (49.1%) from females] yielded valid western blot and RT-PCR results. Saliva sACE2 was detected in 79 (96.3%) children and 76 (96.2%) convalescent adults. Twenty (24.4%) children and 20 (25.3%) convalescent adults were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharynx by RT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-negative children had a significantly higher mean proportional level of saliva sACE2 (0.540 × 10-3%) than RT-PCR-positive children (0.192 × 10-3%, p < 0.001) and convalescent adults (0.173 × 10-3%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, children negative for nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR appear to exhibit a higher concentration of saliva sACE2 than SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive children and convalescent adults. Release of adequate levels of sACE2 in saliva could play a protective role against SARS-CoV-2.

ß-Propiolactone (BPL)-inactivation of SARS-Co-V-2: In vitro validation with focus on saliva from COVID-19 patients for scent dog training.

ß-Propiolactone (BPL) is an organic compound widely used as an inactivating agent in vaccine development and production, for example for SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza viruses. Inactivation of pathogens by BPL is based on an irreversible alkylation of nucleic acids but also on acetylation and cross-linking between proteins, DNA or RNA. However, the protocols for BPL inactivation of viruses vary widely. Handling of infectious, enriched SARS-CoV-2 specimens and diagnostic samples from COVID-19 patients is recommended in biosafety level (BSL)- 3 or BSL-2 laboratories, respectively. We validated BPL inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples with the objective to use saliva from COVID-19 patients for training of scent dogs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Therefore, saliva samples and cell culture medium buffered with NaHCO3 (pH 8.3) were comparatively spiked with SARS-CoV-2 and inactivated with 0.1 % BPL for 1 h (h) or 71 h ( ± 1 h) at 2-8 °C, followed by hydrolysis of BPL at 37 °C for 1 or 2 h, converting BPL into non-toxic beta-hydroxy-propionic acid. SARS-CoV-2 inactivation was demonstrated by a titre reduction of up to 10^4 TCID50/ml in the spiked samples for both inactivation periods using virus titration and virus isolation, respectively. The validated method was confirmed by successful inactivation of pathogens in saliva samples from COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we reviewed the currently available literature on SARS-CoV-2 inactivation by BPL. Accordingly, BPL-inactivated, hydrolysed samples can be handled in a non-laboratory setting. Furthermore, our BPL inactivation protocols can be adapted to validation experiments with other pathogens.