Molecular Mirror Technology Facilitates High-Throughput, Accurate SARS-CoV-2 Testing.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing
/ methods
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
High-Throughput Screening Assays
/ methods
Humans
Infant
Male
Middle Aged
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
/ methods
Pandemics
Polymerase Chain Reaction
SARS-CoV-2
/ isolation & purification
Sensitivity and Specificity
Technology
Young Adult
COVID-19
Molecular Mirror
SARS-CoV-2
automation
nuclear magnetic resonance
nucleic acid amplification
Journal
Microbiology spectrum
ISSN: 2165-0497
Titre abrégé: Microbiol Spectr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101634614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 09 2021
03 09 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
8
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
25
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tests to diagnose acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are at the center of controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid tests benefit from providing quick results but suffer from lower sensitivity, while PCR tests usually take longer to provide more reliable results and can be difficult to scale to meet population needs. We evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of a Molecular Mirror assay (MMA) using nucleic acid extraction and a nucleic acid extraction-free method to determine its ability to identify SARS-CoV-2 in nasal specimens from individuals suspected of having SARS-CoV-2. We compared the MMA using nucleic acid extraction to the emergency use authorization (EUA)-approved TaqPath reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assay to determine its performance characteristics. From 412 total specimens (including 115 previous positives and 297 previous negatives), we found that the positive percent agreement (PPA) was 99.1% (confidence interval [CI], 97.4% to 100.0%) and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 99.3% (95% CI, 98.4% to 100.0%) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Using the extraction-free method, we analyzed 109 specimens (51 previous positives and 58 previous negatives) and found that the PPA for the more rapid version of the assay was 87.8% (95% CI, 78.5% to 96.9%) and the NPA was 100.0% (95% CI, 100.0%) for virus detection. The extraction method has performance comparable to what is observed in many PCR-based assays. The extraction-free method has lower PPA but has the advantage of being more rapid and having a higher throughput. Our data offer a proof of concept that nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) detection can be used in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing and may allow for alternative supply chains to increase testing options.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34431687
doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00392-21
pmc: PMC8552600
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0039221Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 10;383(11):1071-1077
pubmed: 32706958
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 22;70(3):100-105
pubmed: 33476316
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 4;11(1):3134
pubmed: 33542443
BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 15;10(12):e042578
pubmed: 33323447
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Jan 01;69(5152):1642-1647
pubmed: 33382679
Euro Surveill. 2017 Mar 30;22(13):
pubmed: 28382917
Nature. 2020 Dec;588(7836):E6
pubmed: 33199918
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 3;15(11):e0241536
pubmed: 33141862
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 2;73(9):1735-1741
pubmed: 33462589
J Clin Virol. 2020 Sep;130:104579
pubmed: 32795959
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Mar 19;59(4):
pubmed: 33509809
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jan;40(Database issue):D593-8
pubmed: 22006842
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 17;12:CD013812
pubmed: 33331665
Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2010;1:142-54
pubmed: 21977404
Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 18;11(1):4711
pubmed: 32948757
Sci Transl Med. 2020 Aug 12;12(556):
pubmed: 32719001
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):
pubmed: 32364890
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Apr 20;59(5):
pubmed: 33622768
PLoS Biol. 2020 Oct 2;18(10):e3000896
pubmed: 33006983
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Jul;38(7):870-874
pubmed: 32300245
Biomed J. 2019 Jun;42(3):187-192
pubmed: 31466712
J Clin Virol Plus. 2021 Jun;1(1):100011
pubmed: 35261999
RNA. 2020 Jul;26(7):771-783
pubmed: 32358057
J Mol Diagn. 2017 Mar;19(2):230-235
pubmed: 28081922