Saliva sampling is an excellent option to increase the number of SARS CoV2 diagnostic tests in settings with supply shortages

  1. Joaquín Moreno-Contreras
  2. Marco A. Espinoza
  3. Carlos Sandoval-Jaime
  4. Marco A. Cantú-Cuevas
  5. Héctor Barón-Olivares
  6. Oscar D. Ortiz-Orozco
  7. Asunción V. Muñoz-Rangel
  8. Manuel Hernández-de la Cruz
  9. César M. Eroza-Osorio
  10. Carlos F. Arias
  11. Susana López

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

As part of any plan to lift or ease the confinement restrictions that are in place in many different countries, there is an urgent need to increase the capacity of laboratory testing for SARS CoV-2. Detection of the viral genome through RT-qPCR is the golden standard for this test, however, the high demand of the materials and reagents needed to sample individuals, purify the viral RNA, and perform the RT-qPCR test has resulted in a worldwide shortage of several of these supplies. Here, we show that directly lysed saliva samples can serve as a suitable source for viral RNA detection that is cheaper and can be as efficient as the classical protocol that involves column purification of the viral RNA. In addition, it surpasses the need for swab sampling, decreases the risk of the healthcare personnel involved in this process, and accelerates the diagnostic procedure.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.24.170324: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 6.0 (GraphPad Software Inc.) as described in the results section.
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.24.170324v2 on bioRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.24.170324v1 on bioRxiv