ArticleClinical proteomics2023
Identification of SARS-CoV-2 biomarkers in saliva by transcriptomic and proteomics analysis.
Article in Clinical proteomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Viral Mutation Profiling and Discovery Strategy for Sensitive Multiplex Detection of Viruses and Variants in Saliva by Proteomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- 4D-DIA Proteomics Uncovers New Insights into Host Salivary Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2, periodontal pathogens, and host factors: The trinity of oral post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.Reviews in medical virology · 2024Review
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
Abstract
The detection of SARS-CoV-2 biomarkers by real time PCR (rRT-PCR) has shown that the sensitivity of the test is negatively affected by low viral loads and the severity of the disease. This limitation can be overcome by the use of more sensitive approaches such as mass spectrometry (MS), which has not been explored for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in saliva. Thus, this study aimed at assessing the translational applicability of mass spectrometry-based proteomics approaches to identify viral proteins in saliva from people diagnosed with COVID-19 within fourteen days after the initial diagnosis, and to compare its performance with rRT-PCR. After ethics approval, saliva samples were self-collected by 42 COVID-19 positive and 16 healthy individuals. Samples from people positive for COVID-19 were collected on average on the sixth day (± 4 days) after initial diagnosis. Viable viral particles in saliva were heat-inactivated followed by the extraction of total proteins and viral RNA. Proteins were digested and then subjected to tandem MS analysis (LC-QTOF-MS/MS) using a data-dependent MS/MS acquisition qualitative shotgun proteomics approach. The acquired spectra were queried against a combined SARS-CoV-2 and human database. The qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific RNA was done by rRT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2 proteins were identified in all COVID-19 samples (100%), while viral RNA was detected in only 24 out of 42 COVID-19 samples (57.1%). Seven out of 18 SARS-CoV-2 proteins were identified in saliva from COVID-19 positive individuals, from which the most frequent were replicase polyproteins 1ab (100%) and 1a (91.3%), and nucleocapsid (45.2%). Neither viral proteins nor RNA were detected in healthy individuals. Our mass spectrometry approach appears to be more sensitive than rRT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 biomarkers in saliva collected from COVID-19 positive individuals up to 14 days after the initial diagnostic test. Based on the novel data presented here, our MS technology can be used as an effective diagnostic test of COVID-19 for initial diagnosis or follow-up of symptomatic cases, especially in patients with reduced viral load.
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.