ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Agarose gel-based conventional and real-time allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (AS-PCR) assays are currently used for sensitive detection and quantification of MYD88 L265P mutation. Visual inspection of an agarose gel can often be ambiguous. We propose a new allele-specific quantification PCR (AS-qPCR) assay, PlentiPlex™ MYD88 Waldenström lymphoma qPCR assay, that uses Intercalating Nucleic Acid (INA®) technology for increased affinity and specificity. METHODS: This study compares PlentiPlex™ MYD88 Waldenström lymphoma qPCR assay with conventional AS-PCR. We included a total of 102 peripheral and bone marrow blood samples from 94 patients with a lymphoproliferative disorder. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used as a third method in case of discrepancy. RESULTS: A positive percent agreement of 100% (95% CI 0.92-1.0) and a negative percent agreement of 98% (95% CI 0.90-1.0) were found between the conventional AS-PCR and the AS-qPCR methods. Including the ddPCR results to validate the discrepant cases, the sensitivity and specificity of PlentiPlex™ MYD88 Waldenström lymphoma qPCR Assay were 1.0 (95% CI 0.97-1.0) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.96-1.0), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that PlentiPlex™ MYD88 Waldenström lymphoma qPCR assay is a fast, highly sensitive, and specific method for the detection of MYD88 L265P compared with conventional AS-PCR.
Subject(s)
Myeloid Differentiation Factor 88 , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity , Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia , Humans , Myeloid Differentiation Factor 88/genetics , Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia/genetics , Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia/diagnosis , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Mutation , Female , Male , Alleles , Middle Aged , Amino Acid SubstitutionABSTRACT
We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic.
