| Literature DB >> 34102313 |
Di Tian1, Zhen Lin1, Ellie M Kriner2, Dalton J Esneault3, Jonathan Tran4, Julia C DeVoto1, Naima Okami1, Rachel M Greenberg1, Sarah Yanofsky1, Swarnamala Ratnayaka1, Nicholas Tran1, Maeghan Livaccari2, Marla L Lampp3, Noel Wang4, Scott Tim2, Patrick Norton5, John Scott1, Tony Y Hu6, Robert Garry7, Lee Hamm8, Patrice Delafontaine9, Xiao-Ming Yin10.
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is highly contagious and has caused significant medical/socioeconomic impacts. Other than vaccination, effective public health measures, including contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine, is critical for deterring viral transmission, preventing infection progression and resuming normal activities. Viral transmission is affected by many factors, but the viral load and vitality could be among the most important ones. Although in vitro studies have indicated that the amount of virus isolated from infected individuals affects the successful rate of virus isolation, whether the viral load carried at the individual level would determine the transmissibility was unknown. We examined whether the cycle threshold (Ct) value, a measurement of viral load by RT-PCR assay, could differentiate the spreaders from the non-spreaders in a population of college students. Our results indicate that while at the population level the Ct value is lower, suggesting a higher viral load, in the symptomatic spreaders than that in the asymptomatic non-spreaders, there is a significant overlap in the Ct values between the two groups. Thus, Ct value, or the viral load, at the individual level could not predict the transmissibility. Instead, a sensitive method to detect the presence of virus is needed to identify asymptomatic individuals who may carry a low viral load but can still be infectious.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34102313 PMCID: PMC8178946 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.05.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Mol Diagn ISSN: 1525-1578 Impact factor: 5.568
Sex Distribution of the Cases
| Study cohort | All cases | Positive cases | Infection rate, % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion, % | Proportion, % | ||||
| All | 7440 | 100 | 602 | 100 | 8.09 |
| Male | 2790 | 37.50 | 297 | 49.34 | 10.65 |
| Female | 4650 | 62.50 | 305 | 50.66 | 6.56 |
Data reflect the number of unique individual undergraduates being tested in the period between September 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. Each individual may have been tested multiple times during this period, but each unique positive case was counted only once. Proportion of each sex in the population is calculated by dividing the total individual number by male or female individual numbers for all cases or for positive cases. The infection rate is calculated by dividing all the case numbers by the positive case number in the male or female groups or all individuals.
Age Distribution of the Cases
| Study cohort | All cases, years | Positive cases, years | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| All | 20.28 | 1.31 | 19.64 | 1.11 | <0.001 |
| Male | 20.32 | 1.32 | 19.75 | 1.20 | <0.001 |
| Female | 20.25 | 1.30 | 19.54 | 1.02 | <0.001 |
Two-sided unpaired t-tests were conducted between the positive cases and all cases for all sexes, male only or female only.
Figure 1The cycle threshold (Ct) values of the spreaders and the nonspreaders are largely overlapping. A: Separation of index cases into spreader and nonspreader groups. The n of the cases in each population is indicated. B and C: Scatter plots of Ct values expressed as means ± SEM (B) or median ± interquartile intervals (C). Ct values of the indicated populations are compared. D: Histogram of the distribution of Ct values. E: Cumulative frequency of Ct values. Dashed lines indicate the cumulated percentage of each population at the designated Ct value (24 or 32). At the indicated Ct value of ≤24, there is a higher percentage of spreader cases than nonspreader cases, although the differences are small. Ct values of the indicated populations are compared. P > 0.05 (U-test; B and C).
Figure 2Comparisons of cycle threshold (Ct) values of index cases tracked from quarantined cases. A: Diagram of the study design. Index cases with Ct values available are tracked back from their contacts in the quarantined units. B: The Ct values of spreader index cases and nonspreader index cases show a significant overlap. Data shown are means ± SEM. P > 0.05 (U-test).
Figure 3The cycle threshold (Ct) values of the symptomatic individuals are lower than those of the asymptomatic individuals as a population. A: The separation of positive cases into symptomatic and nonsymptomatic groups. The n of the cases in each population is indicated. B and C: Scatter plots of Ct values expressed as means ± SEM (B) or median ± interquartile intervals (C). D: The histogram of the distribution of Ct values. E: The cumulative frequency of Ct values. Dashed lines indicate the cumulated percentage of each population at the Ct value of 24. At this Ct value and below, there is a higher percentage of symptomatic cases (59.9%) than asymptomatic cases (49.6%). Ct values of the indicated populations are compared. ∗P < 0.05 (U-test).
Figure 4The symptomatic spreaders exhibit the lowest cycle threshold (Ct) values as a population. A: Separation of positive cases into spreaders and nonspreaders, with or without symptoms. The n of the cases in each population is indicated. B and C: Scatter plots of Ct values expressed as means ± SEM (B) or median ± interquartile intervals (C). Ct values of the indicated populations are compared. D: The histogram of the distribution of Ct values. E: The cumulative frequency of Ct values. Dashed lines indicate the cumulated percentage of each population at the Ct value of 24. At this Ct value and below, there is a higher percentage of symptomatic spreader cases (66.2%) than asymptomatic nonspreader cases (48.7%). The percentage of cases of the other groups falls between the two. Ct values of the indicated populations are compared. P > 0.05 (one-way analysis of variance; B and C).