MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093289313 · doi:10.1101/2020.10.09.20203430

Gargle-Direct: Extraction-Free Detection of SARS-CoV-2 using Real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) of Saline Gargle Rinse Samples

2020· preprint· en· W3093289313 on OpenAlexaff
Vijay Gadkar, David A. Goldfarb, Virginia A. Young, Nicole Watson, Linda Hoang, Tracy Lee, Natalie Prystajecky, Ghada N. Al‐Rawahi, Jocelyn A. Srigley, Peter Tilley

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)SalineChromatographyReal-time polymerase chain reactionNucleic acidSerial dilutionRNA extractionChemistryMedicineRNAPathologyGeneInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Saline mouth rinse/gargle samples have recently been shown to be a suitable option for swab-independent self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. We sought to evaluate a simplified process for direct reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) testing of this novel sample type and to compare performance with routine RT-qPCR using automated nucleic acid extraction. Methods Clinical saline mouth rinse/gargle samples were subjected to automated nucleic acid extraction (“standard method”), followed by RT-qPCR using three assays including the FDA authorized US-CDC’s N1/N2 assay, which was the reference standard for determining sensitivity/specificity. For extraction-free workflow, an aliquot of each gargle sample underwent viral heat inactivation at 65 °C for 20 minutes followed by RT-qPCR testing, without an intermediate extraction step. An in-house validated RT-qPCR lab developed test (LDT), targeting the SARS-CoV-2’s S/ORF8 genes (SORP triplex assay) and the N1/N2 US-CDC assay was used to evaluate the extraction-free protocol. To improve the analytical sensitivity, we developed a single-tube hemi-nested (STHN) version of the SORP triplex assay. Results A total of 38 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 75 negative saline mouth rinse/gargle samples were included in this evaluation. A 100% concordance in detection rate was obtained between the standard method and the extraction-free approach for the SORP assay. An average increase of +2.63 to +5.74 of the cycle threshold (C T ) values was observed for both the SORP and N1/N2 assay when extraction-free was compared between the standard method. The average ΔC T [ΔC T =C T(Direct PCR) -C T(Extracted RNA) ], for each of the gene targets were: S (ΔC T = +4.24), ORF8 (ΔC T =+2.63), N1 (ΔC T =+2.74) and N2 (ΔC T =+5.74). The ΔC T for the STHN SORP assay was +1.51 and −2.05 for the S and ORF8 targets respectively, when extracted method was compared to the standard method. Conclusion Our Gargle-Direct SARS-CoV-2 method is operationally simple, minimizes pre-analytical sample processing and is potentially implementable by most molecular diagnostic laboratories. The empirical demonstration of single-tube hemi-nested RT-qPCR, to specifically address and alleviate the widely-acknowledged problem of reduced analytical sensitivity of detection of extraction-free templates, should help diagnostic laboratories in choosing Gargle-Direct protocol for high-throughput testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingFrench-language works237,207