ArticleScientific reports2023
Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 isolation in cell culture from nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva specimens of patients with COVID-19.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral mouthwashes for asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adults with COVID-19 and salivary viral load: a randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Enhanced Isolation and Detection of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Patients Undergoing Antiviral Therapy.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Saliva as a Reliable and Non-invasive Sample for Detecting Influenza A in Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Cases.Cureus · 2026Article
- Assessing the generation and dispersal of respiratory particles using upper respiratory commensal bacteria as index organisms for respiratory pathogens.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Saliva and Mouthwash Samples in Children.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2025Article
- Viral Membrane-Targeting Amphipathic Helical Peptide-Based Fluorogenic Probes for the Analysis of Infectious Titers of Enveloped Viruses.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- New methods to detect bacterial or viral infections in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2024Review
- Generation of recombinant viruses directly from clinical specimens of COVID-19 patients.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been revealed that SARS-CoV-2 can be efficiently isolated from clinical specimens such as nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva in cultured cells. In this study, we examined the efficiency of viral isolation including SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains between nasal/nasopharyngeal swab or saliva specimens. Furthermore, we also examined the comparison of viral isolation rates by sample species using simulated specimens for COVID-19. As a result, it was found that the isolation efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva specimens was significantly lower than that in the nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens. In order to determine which component of saliva is responsible for the lower isolation rate of saliva specimens, we tested the abilities of lactoferrin, amylase, cathelicidin, and mucin, which are considered to be abundant in saliva, to inhibit the infection of SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped viruses (SARS-CoV-2pv). Lactoferrin and amylase were found to inhibit SARS-CoV-2pv infection. In conclusion, even if the same number of viral genome copies was detected by the real-time RT-PCR test, infection of SARS-CoV-2 present in saliva is thought to be inhibited by inhibitory factors such as lactoferrin and amylase, compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab specimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.