Didier Musso1, Claudine Roche2, Tu-Xuan Nhan3, Emilie Robin4, Anita Teissier5, Van-Mai Cao-Lormeau6. 1. Laboratoire de biologie médicale, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia; Pôle de recherche et de veille sur les maladies infectieuses émergentes, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Electronic address: dmusso@ilm.pf. 2. Pôle de recherche et de veille sur les maladies infectieuses émergentes, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Electronic address: croche@ilm.pf. 3. Laboratoire de biologie médicale, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Electronic address: tnhan@ilm.pf. 4. Laboratoire de biologie médicale, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Electronic address: e.grange@cht.nc. 5. Pôle de recherche et de veille sur les maladies infectieuses émergentes, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Electronic address: ateissier@ilm.pf. 6. Pôle de recherche et de veille sur les maladies infectieuses émergentes, Institut Louis Malardé, Tahiti, French Polynesia. Electronic address: mlormeau@ilm.pf.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the largest Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak ever reported that occurred from October 2013 to March 2014 in French Polynesia, we observed that several patients presenting the symptoms of acute phase Zika fever were tested negative in blood by ZIKV real-time PCR (RT-PCR). OBJECTIVES: As we have previously detected ZIKV RNA in the saliva of a young child, we investigated the use of saliva as an alternative sample for routine ZIKV RNA detection. STUDY DESIGN: Over a 6 month period, 1,067 samples collected from 855 patients presenting symptoms of Zika fever (saliva only, blood only or both samples) were tested using a specific ZIKV RT-PCR. A medical questionnaire was available for most of the patients. RESULTS: ZIKV was more frequently detected in saliva compared to blood. For the 182 patients with both samples collected, tests were positive for 35 (19.2%) in saliva while negative in blood and tests were positive for 16 (8.8%) in blood while negative in saliva; the difference in mean days after symptoms onset and the percentage of the main symptoms of Zika fever for patients only positive in saliva or in blood was not significant. CONCLUSION: The use of saliva sample increased the rate of molecular detection of ZIKV at the acute phase of the disease but did not enlarge the window of detection of ZIKV RNA. Saliva was of particular interest when blood was difficult to collect (children and neonates especially).
BACKGROUND: During the largest Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak ever reported that occurred from October 2013 to March 2014 in French Polynesia, we observed that several patients presenting the symptoms of acute phase Zika fever were tested negative in blood by ZIKV real-time PCR (RT-PCR). OBJECTIVES: As we have previously detected ZIKV RNA in the saliva of a young child, we investigated the use of saliva as an alternative sample for routine ZIKV RNA detection. STUDY DESIGN: Over a 6 month period, 1,067 samples collected from 855 patients presenting symptoms of Zika fever (saliva only, blood only or both samples) were tested using a specific ZIKV RT-PCR. A medical questionnaire was available for most of the patients. RESULTS:ZIKV was more frequently detected in saliva compared to blood. For the 182 patients with both samples collected, tests were positive for 35 (19.2%) in saliva while negative in blood and tests were positive for 16 (8.8%) in blood while negative in saliva; the difference in mean days after symptoms onset and the percentage of the main symptoms of Zika fever for patients only positive in saliva or in blood was not significant. CONCLUSION: The use of saliva sample increased the rate of molecular detection of ZIKV at the acute phase of the disease but did not enlarge the window of detection of ZIKV RNA. Saliva was of particular interest when blood was difficult to collect (children and neonates especially).
Authors: So-Yon Lim; Christa E Osuna; Katharine Best; Ray Taylor; Elsa Chen; Gyeol Yoon; Jessica L Kublin; Dane Schalk; Nancy Schultz-Darken; Saverio Capuano; David Safronetz; Ma Luo; Steve MacLennan; Amanda Mathis; Yarlagadda S Babu; William P Sheridan; Alan S Perelson; James B Whitney Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Lalita Priyamvada; Kendra M Quicke; William H Hudson; Nattawat Onlamoon; Jaturong Sewatanon; Srilatha Edupuganti; Kovit Pattanapanyasat; Kulkanya Chokephaibulkit; Mark J Mulligan; Patrick C Wilson; Rafi Ahmed; Mehul S Suthar; Jens Wrammert Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gabriela Paz-Bailey; Eli S Rosenberg; Kate Doyle; Jorge Munoz-Jordan; Gilberto A Santiago; Liore Klein; Janice Perez-Padilla; Freddy A Medina; Stephen H Waterman; Carlos Garcia Gubern; Luisa I Alvarado; Tyler M Sharp Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christa E Osuna; So-Yon Lim; Claire Deleage; Bryan D Griffin; Derek Stein; Lukas T Schroeder; Robert Were Omange; Katharine Best; Ma Luo; Peter T Hraber; Hanne Andersen-Elyard; Erwing Fabian Cardozo Ojeda; Scott Huang; Dana L Vanlandingham; Stephen Higgs; Alan S Perelson; Jacob D Estes; David Safronetz; Mark G Lewis; James B Whitney Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Jinzhao Song; Vikram Pandian; Michael G Mauk; Haim H Bau; Sara Cherry; Laurence C Tisi; Changchun Liu Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Enny S Paixão; Florisneide Barreto; Maria da Glória Teixeira; Maria da Conceição N Costa; Laura C Rodrigues Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Laura E Lamb; Sarah N Bartolone; Sebla B Kutluay; Daniela Robledo; Alexandra Porras; Mauricio Plata; Michael B Chancellor Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 2.370