交叉比较替代诊断方案,包括替代临床样本、RNA 提取方法和用于 COVID-19 诊断的核酸扩增技术。

IF 3.9 3区 生物学 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences Pub Date : 2024-08-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142
Ismael Segura-Ulate, Navilla Apú, Bernal Cortés, Jordi Querol-Audi, Yamitzel Zaldívar, Carlos Alexander Ortega, Fernando Flores-Mora, Andrés Gatica-Arias, Germán Madrigal-Redondo
{"title":"交叉比较替代诊断方案,包括替代临床样本、RNA 提取方法和用于 COVID-19 诊断的核酸扩增技术。","authors":"Ismael Segura-Ulate, Navilla Apú, Bernal Cortés, Jordi Querol-Audi, Yamitzel Zaldívar, Carlos Alexander Ortega, Fernando Flores-Mora, Andrés Gatica-Arias, Germán Madrigal-Redondo","doi":"10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heat-induced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88%-96% sensitivity and 95%-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9%-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12465,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences","volume":"11 ","pages":"1445142"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377848/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis.\",\"authors\":\"Ismael Segura-Ulate, Navilla Apú, Bernal Cortés, Jordi Querol-Audi, Yamitzel Zaldívar, Carlos Alexander Ortega, Fernando Flores-Mora, Andrés Gatica-Arias, Germán Madrigal-Redondo\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heat-induced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88%-96% sensitivity and 95%-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9%-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1445142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377848/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2024.1445142","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:COVID-19 的黄金标准诊断方案(GSDP)包括通过传统 RNA 提取(TRE)处理的鼻咽拭子(NPS)样本,并通过逆转录定量聚合酶链反应(RT-qPCR)进行扩增。为减少 GSDP 的时间/成本,开发了多种替代方法,包括替代临床样本、RNA 提取方法和核酸扩增。方法:我们测试了使用唾液、热诱导 RNA 释放(HIRR)和比色逆转录环介导等温扩增(RT-LAMP)替代 GSDP 的其他诊断方法:使用经 TRE 处理的 NPS 的 RT-LAMP 显示出较高的灵敏度(96%)和特异性(97%),与 GSDP 非常接近。当唾液经 TRE 处理并用 RT-LAMP 和 RT-qPCR 扩增时,与 RT-qPCR 相比,RT-LAMP 的诊断参数较高(灵敏度为 88%-96%,特异性为 95%-100%)。然而,当用 TRE 处理唾液并用 RT-LAMP 检测唾液时,与 GSDP 相比,灵敏度(78%)和特异性(87%)的诊断值稍高,但仍低于 GSDP。最后,用 HIRR 处理唾液并通过 RT-LAMP 检测是最简单快捷的方法,但与 GSDP 相比,其灵敏度太低(56%),无法应用于临床。讨论:我们的比较结果表明,RT-LAMP 技术的诊断性能与 RT-qPCR 相当;同样,在采用 TRE 方法时,唾液也具有与 NPS 相同的诊断功能。尽管如此,使用 HIRR 后的直接唾液并用 RT-LAMP 检测并不能产生可接受的诊断性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Background: the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other.

Methods: we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heat-induced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP.

Results: RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88%-96% sensitivity and 95%-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9%-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction.

Discussion: our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1361
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Much of contemporary investigation in the life sciences is devoted to the molecular-scale understanding of the relationships between genes and the environment — in particular, dynamic alterations in the levels, modifications, and interactions of cellular effectors, including proteins. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences offers an international publication platform for basic as well as applied research; we encourage contributions spanning both established and emerging areas of biology. To this end, the journal draws from empirical disciplines such as structural biology, enzymology, biochemistry, and biophysics, capitalizing as well on the technological advancements that have enabled metabolomics and proteomics measurements in massively parallel throughput, and the development of robust and innovative computational biology strategies. We also recognize influences from medicine and technology, welcoming studies in molecular genetics, molecular diagnostics and therapeutics, and nanotechnology. Our ultimate objective is the comprehensive illustration of the molecular mechanisms regulating proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and small metabolites in organisms across all branches of life. In addition to interesting new findings, techniques, and applications, Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences will consider new testable hypotheses to inspire different perspectives and stimulate scientific dialogue. The integration of in silico, in vitro, and in vivo approaches will benefit endeavors across all domains of the life sciences.
期刊最新文献
Autophagy-lysosomal pathway impairment and cathepsin dysregulation in Alzheimer's disease. A matrix-centered view of mass spectrometry platform innovation for volatilome research. Genome-wide identification and analysis of the HD-Zip transcription factor family in oats. Spectral cluster supertree: fast and statistically robust merging of rooted phylogenetic trees. Development of a prognostic model for early-stage gastric cancer-related DNA methylation-driven genes and analysis of immune landscape.
×
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