An expanded RT-PCR melting temperature coding assay to rapidly identify all known SARS-CoV-2 variants and sub-variants of concern

The continued emergence of vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) requires specific identification of each VOC as it arises. Here, we report an expanded version of our previously described sloppy molecular beacon (SMB) melting temperature (Tm) signature-based assay for VOCs, now modified to include detection of Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) sub-variants. The SMB-VOC assay targets the signature codons 501, 484 and 452 in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein which we show can specifically detect and differentiate all known VOCs including the Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4/BA.5). The limit of detection (LOD) of the assay was 20, 22 and 36 genomic equivalents (GE) per reaction with the Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 respectively. Clinical validation of the 3-codon assay in the LC480 instrument showed the assay detected 94% (81/86) of the specimens as WT or VOCs and 6% (5/86) of the tests producing indeterminate results compared to sequencing. Sanger sequencing also failed for four samples. None of the specimens were incorrectly identified as WT or as a different VOC by our assay. Thus, excluding specimens with indeterminant results, the assay was 100% sensitive and 100% specific compared to Sanger sequencing for variant identification. This new assay concept can be easily expanded to add newer variants and can serve as a robust diagnostic tool for selecting appropriate monoclonal antibody therapy and rapid VOC surveillance.

Sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing

Introduction

Non-invasive sample collection and viral sterilizing buffers have independently enabled workflows for more widespread COVID-19 testing by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).

Gap Statement

The combined use of sterilizing buffers across non-invasive sample types to optimize sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods has not been directly and systematically compared.

Aim

We aimed to evaluate diagnostic yield across different non-invasive samples with standard viral transport media (VTM) versus a sterilizing buffer eNAT- (Copan diagnostics Murrieta, CA) in a point-of-care diagnostic assay system.

Methodos

We prospectively collected 84 sets of nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva were placed in either VTM or eNAT, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert). The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard.

Results

Swab specimens collected in eNAT showed an overall superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70 % vs 57 %, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5 %, (95 % CI: 82 %, 95 %), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8 %, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50 %, P<0.0001) or eNAT (58 %, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.

Conclusion

Saliva and eNAT sterilizing buffer can enhance safe and sensitive detection of COVID-19 using point-of-care GeneXpert instruments.

Evaluation of sample collection and transport strategies to enhance yield, accessibility, and biosafety of COVID-19 RT-PCR testing

Sensitive, accessible, and biosafe sampling methods for COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays are needed for frequent and widespread testing. We systematically evaluated diagnostic yield across different sample collection and transport workflows, including the incorporation of a viral inactivation buffer. We prospectively collected nasal swabs, oral swabs, and saliva, from 52 COVID-19 RT-PCR-confirmed patients, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs from 37 patients. Nasal and oral swabs were placed in both viral transport media (VTM) and eNAT™, a sterilizing transport buffer, prior to testing with the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert) test. The sensitivity of each sampling strategy was compared using a composite positive standard. Overall, swab specimens collected in eNAT showed superior sensitivity compared to swabs in VTM (70% vs 57%, P=0.0022). Direct saliva 90.5%, (95% CI: 82%, 95%), followed by NP swabs in VTM and saliva in eNAT, was significantly more sensitive than nasal swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.001) or eNAT (67.8%, P=0.0012) and oral swabs in VTM (50%, P<0.0001) or eNAT (56%, P<0.0001). Saliva and use of eNAT buffer each increased detection of SARS-CoV-2 with the Xpert test; however, no single sample matrix identified all positive cases.