SARS-CoV-2 Genome-Based Severity Predictions Correspond to Lower qPCR Values and Higher Viral Load.

IF 1.1 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Global Health Epidemiology and Genomics Pub Date : 2022-05-31 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/6499217
Martin Skarzynski, Erin M McAuley, Ezekiel J Maier, Anthony C Fries, Jameson D Voss, Richard R Chapleau
{"title":"SARS-CoV-2 Genome-Based Severity Predictions Correspond to Lower qPCR Values and Higher Viral Load.","authors":"Martin Skarzynski, Erin M McAuley, Ezekiel J Maier, Anthony C Fries, Jameson D Voss, Richard R Chapleau","doi":"10.1155/2022/6499217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the importance of predicting, identifying, and tracking mutations throughout a pandemic event. As the COVID-19 global pandemic surpassed one year, several variants had emerged resulting in increased severity and transmissibility. Here, we used PCR as a surrogate for viral load and consequent severity to evaluate the real-world capabilities of a genome-based clinical severity predictive algorithm. Using a previously published algorithm, we compared the viral genome-based severity predictions to clinically derived PCR-based viral load of 716 viral genomes. For those samples predicted to be \"severe\" (probability of severe illness >0.5), we observed an average cycle threshold (Ct) of 18.3, whereas those in in the \"mild\" category (severity probability <0.5) had an average Ct of 20.4 (<i>P</i>=0.0017). We also found a nontrivial correlation between predicted severity probability and cycle threshold (<i>r</i> = -0.199). Finally, when divided into severity probability quartiles, the group most likely to experience severe illness (≥75% probability) had a Ct of 16.6 (<i>n</i> = 10), whereas the group least likely to experience severe illness (<25% probability) had a Ct of 21.4 (<i>n</i> = 350) (<i>P</i>=0.0045). Taken together, our results suggest that the severity predicted by a genome-based algorithm can be related to clinical diagnostic tests and that relative severity may be inferred from diagnostic values.</p>","PeriodicalId":44052,"journal":{"name":"Global Health Epidemiology and Genomics","volume":"2022 1","pages":"6499217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9173902/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health Epidemiology and Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6499217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the importance of predicting, identifying, and tracking mutations throughout a pandemic event. As the COVID-19 global pandemic surpassed one year, several variants had emerged resulting in increased severity and transmissibility. Here, we used PCR as a surrogate for viral load and consequent severity to evaluate the real-world capabilities of a genome-based clinical severity predictive algorithm. Using a previously published algorithm, we compared the viral genome-based severity predictions to clinically derived PCR-based viral load of 716 viral genomes. For those samples predicted to be "severe" (probability of severe illness >0.5), we observed an average cycle threshold (Ct) of 18.3, whereas those in in the "mild" category (severity probability <0.5) had an average Ct of 20.4 (P=0.0017). We also found a nontrivial correlation between predicted severity probability and cycle threshold (r = -0.199). Finally, when divided into severity probability quartiles, the group most likely to experience severe illness (≥75% probability) had a Ct of 16.6 (n = 10), whereas the group least likely to experience severe illness (<25% probability) had a Ct of 21.4 (n = 350) (P=0.0045). Taken together, our results suggest that the severity predicted by a genome-based algorithm can be related to clinical diagnostic tests and that relative severity may be inferred from diagnostic values.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型基因组的严重性预测与较低的qPCR值和较高的病毒载量相对应
2019冠状病毒病(新冠肺炎)大流行证明了在整个大流行事件中预测、识别和跟踪突变的重要性。随着新冠肺炎全球大流行超过一年,出现了几种变种,导致严重程度和传播性增加。为了减少对人类生活的影响,快速识别哪些基因变异会导致毒力或传播增加至关重要。为了解决前者,我们评估了设计用于预测临床严重程度的基于基因组的预测算法是否可以预测聚合酶链式反应(PCR)结果,作为病毒载量和严重程度的替代。使用之前发表的算法,我们将基于病毒基因组的严重程度预测与716个病毒基因组的临床衍生的基于PCR的病毒载量进行了比较。对于那些预测为严重(预测严重程度得分>0.5)的样本,我们观察到平均周期阈值(Ct)为18.3,而轻度(严重程度预测<0.5)的样本平均Ct为20.4(P=0.0017)。我们发现预测严重程度概率和周期阈值之间存在非平凡的相关性(r=-0.199)。此外,当按预测严重程度概率划分为四分位数时,最有可能的四分位数([≥]75%概率)的Ct为16.6(n=10),而最不可能严重的四分之一(<25%)为21.4(n=350)(P=0.0045)。总之,我们的结果表明,基于基因组的算法预测的严重程度可能与临床诊断测试的指标有关,并且可以从诊断值推断出相对严重性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Health Epidemiology and Genomics
Global Health Epidemiology and Genomics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Family History of Hypertension and Echocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hypertensive Nigerians. Magnitude of Neonatal Sepsis and Factors Associated with It among Neonates Admitted to the Intensive Care Units of Neonate in the Primary Hospital of Hawzen, Tigray, Ethiopia, 2020. Shisha Consumption and Presence of Cotinine in Saliva Samples among Students in Public Universities in Coastal Kenya. Regionalization of the Mortality Risk from Cardiomyopathy and Respiratory Diseases Based on the Maximum Entropy Model. Healthcare Providers' Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention and Control Practices in Health Records and Information Management, Ghana.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1