ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Systematic evaluation of 24 extraction and library preparation combinations for metagenomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sequencing the respiratory tract transcriptome has the potential to provide insights into infectious pathogens and the host's immune response. While DNA-based sequencing is more standard in clinical laboratories due to its stability, RNA assays offer unique advantages. RNA reflects dynamic physiological changes, and for RNA viruses, viral RNA particles directly represent copies of the viral genome, enabling greater diagnostic sensitivity. However, RNA's susceptibility to degradation remains a significant challenge, particularly in RNase-rich specimens like saliva. To address this, we conducted a systematic, combinatorial evaluation of 24 distinct mNGS workflows, crossing eight nucleic acid extraction methods with three RNA-Seq library preparation protocols. Remnant saliva samples (n = 6) were pooled and spiked with MS2 phage as a control. The SARS-CoV-2 virus was spiked into half of the samples, which were extracted using the eight different extraction methods (n = 3) and compared using RNA Integrity Number equivalent (RINe) scores and RNA concentration. The extracted RNA was then processed across the three library construction methods and subjected to short-read sequencing to assess all 24 combinations head-to-head. We compared methods based on viral read recovery and found that RINe and concentration did not correlate with viral detection. The Zymo Quick-RNA Magbead kit and the Tecan Revelo RNA-Seq High-Sensitivity RNA library kit were the extraction and library-preparation kits that yielded the most SARS-CoV-2 reads, respectively. Importantly, our combinatorial analysis revealed that any small variability attributable to different nucleic acid extraction methods was heavily overshadowed by differences in quality attributable to the RNA-Seq library preparation methods. These findings challenge the reliance on conventional RNA quality metrics for clinical metagenomics and underscore the need to redefine extraction quality standards for mNGS applications.
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.