Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39599766›Full record

ArticleViruses2024

Evaluation of Fecal Sample Pooling for Real-Time RT-PCR Testing SARS-CoV-2 in Animals.

Antonio Leonardi-Cattolica, Sandipty Kayastha, Megan Miller, Jake Guag, Andriy Tkachenko, James Lowe, Matthew Allender, Karen Terio, Leyi Wang

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Antonio Leonardi-CattolicaVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-2853-5700
Sandipty KayasthaVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.
Megan MillerCenter for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Laurel, MD 20708, USA.
Jake GuagCenter for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Laurel, MD 20708, USA.
Andriy TkachenkoCenter for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Laurel, MD 20708, USA.
James LoweDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001 South Lincoln Ave, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9773-6000
Matthew AllenderVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.
Karen TerioZoological Pathology Program, University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4924-5503
Leyi WangVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5813-9505

Funding

Building UI VDL COVID-19 test capacity: evaluating sample pooling for SARS-CoV-2 testing in animalsU18FD007727 · FDA · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI WANG, LEYI · 2022 to 2023
$96k
FDA HHS U18 FD007727Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 5U18FD007727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, veterinary diagnostic laboratories tested both human and animal samples and needed to ensure that they could accurately perform large numbers of diagnostic tests in a timely manner. Sample pooling, a methodology used effectively for over 80 years as a surveillance tool for screening large numbers of potentially infected individuals, was employed. Given its sensitivity, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is more suitable for employing this strategy, as compared to other less sensitive testing methods. In this study, we evaluated the capability of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in both 5-sample and 10-sample pools of feces using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) as well as determined the level of sensitivity. A blinded method test (BMT) by an independent laboratory was conducted to assess the five-sample fecal pool. To complement detection capability, the stability of the genome within a PBS fecal suspension was measured under various time and temperature conditions across a 28-day period. Our results showed that the limit of detection for 5-sample and 10-sample fecal pools is 12.8 and 6.4 genome copies in a 25 µL PCR, respectively. The 5-sample and 10-sample pooling resulted in a cycle threshold (Ct) value loss of 2.35 and 3.45, as compared to Ct values of known positive individual samples, but consistent detection was still achieved in pools containing positive samples with an original Ct below 36 and 34, respectively. The simulation of clinical five-sample pooling showed that all positive samples could be detected regardless of the number (1-3) of positive samples in each pool. The BMT results demonstrated excellent sensitivity (100 copies/reaction) in five-sample pools for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA even though a fecal matrix effect was observed. Finally, our results show that the SARS-CoV-2 genome remains stable over a wide range of time and temperature variations. Overall, our findings provide solid data to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity in veterinary diagnostic laboratories.

Indexed as

COVID-19FecesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityAnimalsCOVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingHumansRNA, ViralSpecimen HandlingRNA, ViralanimalsfecesRT-PCRsample poolingSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39599766
PMCPMC11599033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.