All exons are not created equal-exon vulnerability determines the effect of exonic mutations on splicing.

It is now widely accepted that aberrant splicing of constitutive exons is often caused by mutations affecting cis-acting splicing regulatory elements (SREs), but there is a misconception that all exons have an equal dependency on SREs and thus a similar vulnerability to aberrant splicing. We demonstrate that some exons are more likely to be affected by exonic splicing mutations (ESMs) due to an inherent vulnerability, which is context dependent and influenced by the strength of exon definition. We have developed VulExMap, a tool which is based on empirical data that can designate whether a constitutive exon is vulnerable. Using VulExMap, we find that only 25% of all exons can be categorized as vulnerable, whereas two-thirds of 359 previously reported ESMs in 75 disease genes are located in vulnerable exons. Because VulExMap analysis is based on empirical data on splicing of exons in their endogenous context, it includes all features important in determining the vulnerability. We believe that VulExMap will be an important tool when assessing the effect of exonic mutations by pinpointing whether they are located in exons vulnerable to ESMs.

Detection of BRAF mutations in malignant melanoma and colorectal cancer by SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR assay.

Mutations in BRAF exon 15 lead to conformational changes in its activation loops, resulting in constitutively active BRAF proteins which are implicated in the development of several human cancer types. Different BRAF inhibitors have been developed and introduced in clinical practice. Identification of BRAF mutations influences the clinical evaluation, treatment, progression and for that reason a sensitive and specific identification of BRAF mutations is on request from the clinic. Here we present the SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR Assay that uses a novel real-time PCR-based method for BRAF mutation detection based on PentaBases proprietary DNA analogue technology designed to work on standard real-time PCR instruments. The SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR Assay displays high sensitivity, specificity, fast and easy-to-use. The SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR Assay was validated on two different FFPE tumour biopsy cohorts, one cohort included malignant melanoma patients previously analyzed by the Cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test, and one cohort from colorectal cancer patients previously analyzed by mutant-enriched PCR and direct sequencing. All BRAF mutant malignant melanoma patients were confirmed with the SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR Assay and additional four new mutations in the malignant melanoma cohort were identified. All the previously identified BRAF mutations in the colorectal cancer patients were confirmed, and additional three new mutations not identified with direct sequencing were detected. Also, one new BRAF mutation not previously identified with ME-PCR was found. Furthermore, the SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR Assay identified the specific change in the amino acid. The SensiScreen® FFPE BRAF qPCR Assay will contribute to a more specific, time and cost saving approach to better identify and characterize mutations in patients affected by cancer, and consequently permits a better BRAF characterization that is fundamental for therapy decision.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab.

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.

Validation and advantages of using novel RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and play a major role in viral subtyping for rapid detection and monitoring of important mutations, containing the spread of new virus variants. We wanted to compare RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays to Sanger Sequencing for detection of variants within the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and examined their sensitivity and specificity. Samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 663 + 82) were subtyped using both Sanger sequencing and five RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays specific for the mutations N501Y, P681H, E484K, K417N/T, and N439K. The results of the two methods were compared. The training cohort and the clinical validation cohort showed equally, or significantly better sensitivity of the assays compared to the Sanger sequencing. The agreement of the Sanger sequencing and the assays ranged from 92.6 to 100% for the training cohort and 99.4-100% for the clinical validation. The sensitivity, specificity, and turn-around time of the RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays are well-suited for clinical monitoring of VOCs, making the assays an important tool in contact tracing and risk stratification. Furthermore, the assays were able to indicate the presence of new mutations in the complementary sequence to the mutation-specific probes.