Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb 24:8:617399.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.617399. eCollection 2021.

Performance of Saliva Samples for COVID-19 Diagnosis by Using the AllplexTM 2019-nCoV Assay Kit

Cecilia V Tapia  1 , Campos Marcia  1 , Mora Ivone  1 , Pozas Nadia  1 , Morales Lesly  1 , Guzmán Camila  1 , Aguilera Valentina  1 , Ibarra Paula  2 , Magne Fabien  3
Affiliations

Performance of Saliva Samples for COVID-19 Diagnosis by Using the AllplexTM 2019-nCoV Assay Kit

Cecilia V Tapia et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is the reference sampling method for the detection of SARS-Cov-2, it is not always possible to collect NPS in some patients. Saliva represents an interesting sampling method because it is less invasive and more convenient in patients with nasal or pharyngeal lesions. Objective: To compare the RT-qPCR test performances of saliva samples with nasal mid-turbinate swab (NMTS) and NPS samples in a cohort of ambulatory patients suspected of having COVID-19. Study Design: For each of the 112 enrolled patients, NPS, NMTS, and saliva samples were collected and tested for SARS-Cov-2 detection using three different target genes (RdRP, N and E genes) by RT-qPCR. Results: Among the positive samples (56/112), saliva samples showed a lower percentage of SARS-Cov-2 detection compared to NPS samples, (85.7 vs. 96.4%), while still a lower percentage was observed for NMTS samples (78.6%). In average, saliva samples showed higher Ct values for all tested target genes, compared to those from NPS and NMTS samples. Conclusions: By using the AllplexTM 2019-nCoV Assay Kit, saliva samples showed lower sensitivity for SARS CoV-2 compared to NPS samples; however, the not detected cases had lower viral burden in NPS samples (CT values >33) representing an interesting alternative sampling method in patients in which it is not possible to take a NPS sample.

Keywords: COVID-19; RT-qPCR; SAR-CoV-2; nasopharangeal swabs; saliva.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of the RT-qPCR performance between the distinct sampling methods. Boxplots of SARS-CoV-2 Cycle threshold (Ct) values (mean and interquartile range) obtained for (A) E target gene, (B) RdRP target gene, and (C) N target gene in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), nasal mid-turbinate (NTMS) swab, and saliva (SALIVA) samples. Statistical differences were tested using the paired t-test. * p ≤ 0.05. ** p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of the RT-qPCR efficiency between the distinct sampling methods. Correlation of SARS-CoV-2 Cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained for (A,B) E target gene, (C,D) RdRP target gene, (E,F) and N target gene between nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), nasal mid-turbinate swab (NTMS), and saliva (SALIVA) samples. NPS was considered as the sampling method reference.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of Ct values depending on the number of positive samples. Ct values of samples that are positive for the three sampling methods (three positive samples) and for at least two sampling methods (≤ 2 positive samples). NPS, nasopharyngeal swab; NTMS, nasal midturbinate swab; SALIVA, saliva.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jin Y, Yang H, Ji W, Wu W, Chen S, Zhang W, et al. Virgology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and control of COVID-19. Viruses. (2020) 12:372. 10.3390/v12040372 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pascarella G, Strumia A, Piliego C, Bruno F, Del Buono R, Costa F, et al. COVID-19 diagnosis and management: a comprehensive review. J Intern Med. (2020) 288:192–206. 10.1111/joim.13091 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Udugama B, Kadhiresan P, Kozlowski H, Malekjahani A, Osborne M, Li V, et al. Diagnosing COVID-19: the disease and tools for detection. ACS Nano. (2020) 14:3822–35. 10.1021/acsnano.0c02624 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and prevention (CDC) . Interim Guidelines for Clinical Specimens for COVID-19. Centers Dis Control Prev (2020). Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/guidelines-clinical-specim...
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) . Laboratory Testing for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Suspected Human Cases:Interim Guidance. World Heal Organ (2020). Available online at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331329