| Literature DB >> 35966714 |
Isadora Alonso Corrêa1, Débora Souza Faffe2, Rafael Mello Galliez3, Cássia Cristina Alves Gonçalves4, Richard Araújo Maia4, Gustavo Peixoto da Silva1, Filipe Romero Rebello Moreira4, Diana Mariani4, Mariana Freire Campos2, Isabela de Carvalho Leitão2, Marcos Romário de Souza1, Marcela Sabino Cunha1, Érica Ramos Dos Santos Nascimento4, Liane de Jesus Ribeiro4, Thais Felix Cordeiro da Cruz4, Cintia Policarpo4, Luis Gonzales5, Mary A Rodgers5, Michael Berg5, Roy Vijesurier5, Gavin A Cloherty5, John Hackett5, Orlando da Costa Ferreira4, Terezinha Marta Pereira Pinto Castiñeiras3, Amilcar Tanuri4, Luciana Jesus da Costa1.
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) transmission occurs even among fully vaccinated individuals; thus, prompt identification of infected patients is central to control viral circulation. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are highly specific, but sensitivity is variable. Discordant RT-qPCR vs. Ag-RDT results are reported, raising the question of whether negative Ag-RDT in positive RT-qPCR samples could imply the absence of infectious viruses. To study the relationship between negative Ag-RDT results with virological, molecular, and serological parameters, we selected a cross-sectional and a follow-up dataset and analyzed virus culture, subgenomic RNA quantification, and sequencing to determine infectious viruses and mutations. We demonstrated that RT-qPCR positive while SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT negative discordant results correlate with the absence of infectious virus in nasopharyngeal samples. A decrease in sgRNA detection together with an expected increase in detectable anti-S and anti-N IgGs was also verified in these samples. The data clearly demonstrate that a negative Ag-RDT sample is less likely to harbor infectious SARS-CoV-2 and, consequently, has a lower transmissible potential.Entities:
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; antigen rapid test; infectious virus detection; qRT- PCR; virus transmissibility
Year: 2022 PMID: 35966714 PMCID: PMC9364907 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.912138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Schematic representation of the UFRJ-CTD cohort from 20 August to 21 September and sample selection. Mildly symptomatic individuals tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) diagnosis at the Center for COVID-19 Diagnosis of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro from August 2020 to September 2021 account for a total of 8.095 RT-qPCR and antigen RTD exams. Of this total, 1.820 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 1.539 also being antigen RDT positive (concordant samples) and 293 antigen RDT negative (discordant samples). From this group, 61 samples (23 concordant and 29 discordant) were selected for further studies comprising the cross-sectional dataset while 30 additional patients were selected for the follow-up dataset where the patient has a second sample collected with a minimum of 6 days after diagnosis.
Figure 2Evaluation of Panbio™ COVID-19 Antigen RDT test showed low false-negative occurrence with no variation during the time of the study. The total number of RT-PCR positive results per month in the studied population. In black, the total number of RT-PCR positive individuals with a negative antigen [Ag (–)] RDT result (discordant group). In gray, the total number of RT-PCR positive individuals with a positive Antigen [Ag (+)] RDT result (concordant group). At the top, prevalent viral variants in Rio de Janeiro state during the study, according to data from the Vigilance Network of the State of Rio de Janeiro (blob:http://www.corona-omica.rj.lncc.br/4efa46e4-9323-452e-b3b2-c8014526a9ad).
Figure 3Discordant samples (RT-PCR+/Ag-RDT-) showed higher Ct values than concordant ones (RT-PCR+/Ag-RDT+). (A) Ct values (N1 target) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in patients with a positive (n = 1,539) or negative (n = 293) nasopharyngeal antigen (Ag) rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result tested from August 2020 to September 2021. (B–D) Correlation between Ct value (N1 target) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and days since symptom onset (DSSO) when samples were collected in total patients (B), and among patients with a positive or negative Ag-RDT result (C,D, respectively).
Figure 4Antigen discordant samples have higher Ct and lower viral isolation rates compared with discordant samples. (A) Violin plot showing RT-PCR Ct values (N1 target gene) in antigen concordant (RT-PCR+/Ag-RDT+, n = 23) and discordant (RT-PCR+/Ag-RDT-, n = 29) samples used for virus isolation experiments, and lines represent the median and 25–75% quartiles. (B) Virus isolation success in total number of antigen concordant (n = 23) and discordant (n = 29) samples. (C,D) Viral isolation probability considering RT-PCR Ct values (N1 target gene) and nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test (Ag-NP) result as isolated covariates, respectively.
Figure 5Phylogenetic and protein analysis indicate no major differences between concordant and discordant samples. (A) Phylogenetic tree of the viral transport medium (VTM) and isolated viral samples demonstrated that concordant and discordant samples do not form specific clusters and are grouped only according to the viral lineage. (B) Schematic representation of amino acid differences in N gene between sequenced VTM or viral isolated concordant and discordant samples. (C) Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike, S1, and nucleocapsid (N) proteins by Western blotting in lysates from Vero E6 cells infected with concordant and discordant samples. Uninfected cells were used as mock. Antigen discordant samples (42,952 and 41,606) in red and antigen concordant samples (38,177, 38,238, 37,936, 37,929, and 32,941) in black.
Summarized data from follow-up samples.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Number of samples | 29 | 29 | 13 |
|
| |||
| Genomic | 17.71 | 27.48 | 35.03 |
| Subgenomic | 19.53 | 29.50 | 0.0 |
| VTM Antigen positive result (%) | 100.0 | 12.19 | 0.0 |
|
| |||
| Median OD | 1.15 | 3.93 | 3.86 |
| Positive results (%) | 43.33 (13 | 96.29 (26/27) | 83.33 (10/12) |
|
| |||
| Median OD | 0.70 | 3.70 | 4.30 |
| Positive results (%) | 23.33 (7/30) | 92.59 (23!/25) | 100.0 (12/12) |
| Virus isolation (% success) | 72.41 (21/29) | 10.71 (3/28) | 23.08 (3 |
Seven patients were previously fully vaccinated.
!The two negative samples had 6 and 7 days since symptom onset (DSSO).
Related to the total of follow-up samples (41) including concordant (5) and discordant (36) samples. The overall rate of virus isolation among the discordant samples is 13.89% (5/36).
Two isolations came from consecutive samples of a single individual.
Figure 6Ct values increase with prolonged infectious periods in follow-up samples. Graphical representation of the Ct value from the 30 patients that comprised the follow-up dataset at the first sample collection and the following samples from these individuals during the follow-up.