Standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols using nasopharyngeal/throat (NP/T) swabs are invasive and require trained medical staff for reliable sampling. In addition, it has been shown that PCR is more sensitive as compared to antigen-based tests. Here we describe the analytical and clinical evaluation of our in-house RNA extraction-free saliva-based molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity of the test was equal to the sensitivity obtained in other Dutch diagnostic laboratories that process NP/T swabs. In this study, 955 individuals participated and provided NP/T swabs for routine molecular analysis (with RNA extraction) and saliva for comparison. Our RT-qPCR resulted in a sensitivity of 82,86% and a specificity of 98,94% compared to the gold standard. A false-negative ratio of 1,9% was found. The SARS-CoV-2 detection workflow described here enables easy, economical, and reliable saliva processing, useful for repeated testing of individuals.
LINK
Saliva diagnostics have become increasingly popular due to their non-invasive nature and patient-friendly collection process. Various collection methods are available, yet these are not always well standardized for either quantitative or qualitative analysis. In line, the objective of this study was to evaluate if measured levels of various biomarkers in the saliva of healthy individuals were affected by three distinct saliva collection methods: 1) unstimulated saliva, 2) chew stimulated saliva, and 3) oral rinse. Saliva samples from 30 healthy individuals were obtained by the three collection methods. Then, the levels of various salivary biomarkers such as proteins and ions were determined. It was found that levels of various biomarkers obtained from unstimulated saliva were comparable to those in chew stimulated saliva. The levels of potassium, sodium, and amylase activity differed significantly among the three collection methods. Levels of all biomarkers measured using the oral rinse method significantly differed from those obtained from unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva. In conclusion, both unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva provided comparable levels for a diverse group of biomarkers. However, the results obtained from the oral rinse method significantly differed from those of unstimulated and chew-stimulated saliva, due to the diluted nature of the saliva extract.
DOCUMENT
Knowledge of the time of deposition is pivotal in forensic investigations. Recent studies show that changes in intrinsic fluorescence over time can be used to estimate the age of body fluids. These changes have been attributed to oxidative modifications caused by protein–lipid interactions. This pilot study aims to explore the impact of these modifications on body fluid fluorescence, enhancing the protein–lipid model system for age estimation. Lipid and protein oxidation markers, including protein carbonyls, dityrosine, advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), malondialdehyde (MDA), and 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE), were studied in aging semen, urine, and saliva over 21 days. Surface plasmon resonance imaging (SPRi), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and fluorescence spectroscopy were applied. Successful detection of AGE, dityrosine, MDA, and HNE occurred in semen and saliva via SPRi, while only dityrosine was detected in urine. Protein carbonyls were measured in all body fluids, but only in saliva was a significant increase observed over time. Additionally, protein fluorescence loss and fluorescent oxidation product formation were assessed, showing significant decreases in semen and saliva, but not in urine. Although optimization is needed for accurate quantification, this study reveals detectable markers for protein and lipid oxidation in aging body fluids, warranting further investigation.
MULTIFILE
