Comparison of mechanical homogenization versus enzymatic digestion sample preparation methodologies for SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva for surveillance of variants of concern on the University of Tennessee campus in early 2021
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has profoundly impacted communities across the globe, requiring accurate and accessible diagnostic technologies in support of public health mitigation efforts. As testing has evolved throughout the course of the pandemic, varying sample preparation methodologies have been employed. Herein we perform a comparison of three commercial sample preparation methods: two mechanical homogenization workflows and one enzymatic digestion approach for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from biomarker genes in 20 human saliva pools. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern were also identified on the University of Tennessee, Knoxville campus during the spring semester of 2021 utilizing the commercial PerkinElmer PKamp VariantDetect SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Assay kit. Two hundred and ten (210) human saliva pools were selected and analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern providing insight into the utility of these various commercial workflows for integration into current public health SARS-CoV-2 surveillance measures.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.11.22274949: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.11.22274949: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
