ArticleHeliyon2024
SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance and reliability of PCR single point mutation assay (
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) and lineages is crucial for decision-making. Our objective was to study the SARS-CoV-2 clade dynamics across epidemiological waves and evaluate the reliability of SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX Material and methods: A laboratory-based study was conducted on SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal specimens cycle threshold (Ct)≤30 at the Chantal BIYA International Reference Centre in Yaoundé-Cameroon, between April-2020 to August-2022. Samples were analyzed in parallel with Sanger sequencing and (SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX CE Results: Of the 130 sequences generated, SARS-CoV-2 clades during wave-1 (April-November 2020) showed 97 % (30/31) wild-type lineages and 3 % (1/31) Gamma-variant; wave-2 (December-2020 to May-2021), 25 % (4/16) Alpha-variant, 25 % (4/16) Beta-variant, 44 % (7/16) wild-type and 6 % (1/16) mu; wave-3 (June-October 2021), 94 % (27/29) Delta-variant, 3 % (1/29) Alpha-variant, 3 % (1/29) wild-type; wave-4 (November-2021 to August-2022), 98 % (53/54) Omicron-variant and 2 % (1/54) Delta-variant. Omicron sub-variants were BA.1 (47 %), BA.5 (34 %), BA.2 (13 %) and BA.4 (6 %). Globally, the two genotyping methods accurately identified the SARS-CoV-2 VOCs (P = 0.17, McNemar test; Ka = 0.67). Conclusion: Genomic surveillance reveals a rapid dynamic in SARS-CoV-2 strains between epidemiological waves in Cameroon. For wide-spread variant surveillance in resource-limited settings, SNPsig® SARS-CoV-2 EscapePLEX CEkit represents a suitable tool, pending upgrading for distinguishing Omicron sub-lineages.
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.