Researchers surprised that process designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 also identifies monkeypox in wastewater
Early information about an outbreak in a geographical region can inform local clinical laboratories as to which infectious agents and variants they are likely to see when testing patients who have symptoms. To that end, wastewater testing has become a rich source of early clues as to where COVID-19 outbreaks are spreading and how new variants of the coronavirus are emerging.
Ongoing advances in genetic sequencing and digital technologies are making it feasible to test wastewater for infectious agents in ways that were once too time-consuming, too expensive, or simply impossible.
“Before wastewater sequencing, the only way to do this was through clinical testing, which is not feasible at large scale, especially in areas with limited resources, public participation, or the capacity to do sufficient testing and sequencing,” said Knight in a UCSD press release. “We’ve shown that wastewater sequencing can successfully track regional infection dynamics with fewer limitations and biases than clinical testing to the benefit of almost any community.” (Photo copyright: UC San Diego News.)
Same Process, Different Virus
Following August’s declaration of a state of emergency by California, San Diego County, and the federal government, UCSD researchers added monkeypox surveillance to UCSD’s existing wastewater surveillance program.
“It’s the same process as SARS-CoV-2 qPCR monitoring, except that we have been testing for a different virus. Monkeypox is a DNA virus, so it is a bit of a surprise that our process optimized for SARS-CoV-2, which is an RNA virus, works so well,” said Rob Knight, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics and Computer Science and Engineering at UCSD and one of the lead authors of the study in the press release.
According to the press release, RNA sequencing from wastewater has two specific benefits:
It avoids the potential of clinical testing biases, and
It can track changes in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants over time.
In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists from the University of California San Diego and Scripps Research looked into genetic sequencing of wastewater. They wanted to see if it would provide insights into levels and variants of the SARS-CoV-2 within a specific community.
Individuals who have COVID-19 shed the virus in their stool.
The UCSD/Scripps researchers deployed commercial auto-sampling robots to collect wastewater samples at the main UCSD campus. They analyzed the samples for levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA at the Expedited COVID-19 Identification Environment (EXCITE) lab at UCSD. After the success of the program on the campus, they extended their research to include other facilities and communities in the San Diego area.
“The coronavirus will continue to spread and evolve, which makes it imperative for public health that we detect new variants early enough to mitigate consequences,” said Knight in a July press release announcing the publication of their study in the journal Nature, titled, “Wastewater Sequencing Reveals Early Cryptic SARS-CoV-2 Variant Transmission.”
Detecting Pathogens Weeks Earlier than Traditional Clinical Laboratory Testing
In July, the scientists successfully determined the genetic mixture of SARS-CoV-2 variants present in wastewater samples by examining just two teaspoons of raw sewage. They found they could accurately identify new variants 14 days before traditional clinical laboratory testing. They detected the presence of the Omicron variant 11 days before it was first reported clinically in the community.
During the study, the team collected and analyzed 21,383 sewage samples, with most of those samples (19,944) being taken from the UCSD campus. They performed genomic sequencing on 600 of the samples and compared them to genomes obtained from clinical swabs. They also compared 31,149 genomes from clinical genomic surveillance to 837 wastewater samples taken from the community.
The scientists distinguished specific viral lineages present in the samples by sequencing the viruses’ complete set of genetic instructions. Mutational differences between the various SARS-CoV-2 variants can be minute and subtle, but also have notable biological deviations.
“Nothing like this had been done before. Sampling and detection efforts began modestly but grew steadily with increased research capacity and experience. Currently, we’re monitoring almost 350 buildings on campus,” said UCSD’s Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, PhD, in the July press release.
“The wastewater program was an essential element of UC San Diego Health’s response to the COVID pandemic,” said Robert Schooley, MD, Infectious Disease Specialist at UC San Diego Health, in the press release. Schooley is also a professor at UCSD School of Medicine, and one of the authors of the study.
“It provided us with real-time intelligence about locations on campus where virus activity was ongoing,” he added. “Wastewater sampling essentially allowed us to ‘swab the noses’ of every person upstream from the collector every day and to use that information to concentrate viral detection efforts at the individual level.”
Monkeypox Added to UCSD Wastewater Surveillance
In August, UCSD officially added the surveillance of the monkeypox virus to their ongoing wastewater surveillance program. A month earlier, the researchers had discerned 10,565.54 viral copies per liter of wastewater. They observed the levels fluctuating and increasing.
On August 2, the scientists detected 189,309.81 viral copies per liter of wastewater. However, it is not yet clear if the monitoring of monkeypox viral loads in wastewater will enable the researchers to accurately predict future infections or case rates.
“We don’t yet know if the data will anticipate case surges like with COVID,” Knight said in the August UCSD press release announcing the addition of monkeypox to the surveillance program. “It depends on when the virus is shed from the body relative to how bad the symptoms are that cause people to seek care. This is, in principle, different for each virus, although in practice wastewater seems to be predictive for multiple viruses.”
Utilization of genetic sequencing of wastewater sampling will continue to develop and improve. “It’s fairly easy to add new pathogens to the process,” said Smruthi Karthikeyan, PhD, an environmental engineer and postdoctoral researcher in Knight’s lab who has overseen wastewater monitoring at UC San Diego. “It’s doable on short notice. We can get more information in the same turnaround time.”
Thus, clinical laboratories engaged in testing programs for COVID-19 may soon see the addition of monkeypox to those processes.
Developers of medical laboratory tests had high hopes that cheap saliva-based tests would compete with at-home OTC tests that use nasal swabs, but skepticism among scientists continues
Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technology has become the standard for clinical laboratory diagnostic testing used to detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. However, to enable more widespread testing, some public health experts have called for deployment of cheap, rapid, saliva-based antigen tests that could be self-administered by consumers in their homes.
Despite the technology’s lower sensitivity compared with RT-PCR testing, the idea of “fast-and-frequent” universal antigen testing has gained support as a possible game-changer against the outbreak, the New York Times reported.
The FDA recently took a step in this direction with its first emergency use authorization for the Ellume COVID-19 at-home antigen test. But other developments suggest that these tests may fall short of the lofty vision initially outlined by the experts.
Ellume’s COVID-19 Home Test (above) received emergency use authorization from the FDA on December 15. In a press release, Ellume claimed its rapid-antigen test, “demonstrated a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100%, and in asymptomatic individuals, the test demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96%. This level of accuracy across both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals is crucial in mitigating the spread of an infectious disease like COVID-19.” (Photo copyright: Ellume.)
The Promise of Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Tests
In a column he wrote for Time in July, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, a practicing General Internist and Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, described the promise of rapid antigen tests. “Imagine spitting on a special strip of paper every morning and being told two minutes later whether you were positive for COVID-19,” he wrote. “If everyone in the United States did this daily, we would dramatically drop our transmission rates and bring the pandemic under control.”
Another advocate for this approach is Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a core member of the School’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics (CCDD). In a commentary for Time in November he wrote, “Widespread and frequent rapid antigen testing (public health screening to suppress outbreaks) is the best possible tool we have at our disposal today—and we are not using it.”
However, one major issue with antigen testing is sensitivity. “Antigen tests require higher levels of virus than qPCR [quantitative polymerase chain reaction] to return a positive result,” Jha wrote in Time. However, he contends, “the frequency of testing and the speed of results” counter concerns about accuracy.
Even with lower sensitivity, Jha wrote, the quicker test results from antigen tests “would identify viral loads during the most infectious period, meaning those cases we care most about identifying—at the peak period of infectiousness—are less likely to be missed.”
As the FDA explains, RT-PCR molecular tests “detect the virus’ genetic material,” whereas, according to an article published in Nature, titled, “Fast Coronavirus Tests: What They Can and Can’t Do,” antigen tests can “detect specific proteins … on the surface of the virus, and can identify people who are at the peak of infection, when virus levels in the body are likely to be high.”
At-Home Antigen Tests Receive EUAs
The new antigen test developed by Ellume is “the first over-the-counter (OTC) fully at-home diagnostic test for COVID-19,” the FDA said in a press release. The user self-administers a nasal swab and places it in an analyzer connected to a smartphone app. It can deliver results in 20 minutes. The company states that its test has overall sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 97% based on a clinical study of 198 subjects in a simulated home setting.
Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the FDA press release, “This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab. However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”
Ellume expects to deliver about 20 million tests to the US by the end of June 2021. Multiple outlets reported that the test will cost about $30, AP News reported.
Meanwhile, the FDA also authorized at-home use of Abbott’s BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, which was previously authorized for use in point-of-care settings. This test, which requires a prescription, will sell for $25.
In a series of tweets, Harvard’s Mina applauded both moves, but he wrote that they [antigen tests] still fall short of his vision for fast and frequent testing. He described Abbott’s BinaxNOW as “the type of rapid test I have been calling for,” but said he’d like to see tests priced far less and available without a prescription.
Diminishing Prospects for Saliva-based Antigen Tests?
All rapid antigen tests authorized by the FDA so far require nasopharyngeal and/or nasal swab specimens, and it appears that it may be a long time, if ever, before saliva-based antigen tests are available. The New York Times (NYT) reported in October that two companies working on antigen tests—E25Bio and OraSure (NASDAQ:OSUR)—have dropped plans to enable use of saliva.
“If I was placing a bet—which I am, because I’m leading an antigen-based testing company—I would say it’s going to be very difficult for antigen-based testing to work on saliva samples,” E25Bio founder Bobby Brooke Herrera, PhD (above with E25Bio co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Irene Bosch) told the NYT. (Photo copyright: WCVB-TV.)
One advantage of a saliva-based test is that it would be easier to self-administer. “But as they continued to tinker with their tests, researchers at both E25Bio and OraSure found saliva’s performance to be more lackluster than anticipated, and were forced to pivot,” the New York Times reported. Instead, both companies will seek authorization for use of their tests with nasal swabs.
HHS Contract for Antigen Tests Brings High Rates of False Positives
A recent investigative story in ProPublica, titled, “Rapid Testing Is Less Accurate than the Government Wants to Admit,” raised additional questions about rapid antigen testing. In August, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced it had awarded a $760 million contract for 150 million Abbott BinaxNOW tests to be distributed to schools and nursing homes. But later, according to ProPublica, healthcare workers in Nevada and Vermont reported high rates of false positives.
“With the benefit of hindsight, experts said the Trump administration should have released antigen tests primarily to communities with outbreaks instead of expecting them to work just as well in large groups of asymptomatic people,” ProPublica reported. “Understanding they can produce false results; the government could have ensured that clinics had enough for repeat testing to reduce false negatives and access to more precise PCR tests to weed out false positives.”
A few weeks after the reports from Nevada and Vermont, the FDA issued a letter advising clinical laboratories and healthcare providers about the possibility of false positives, along with steps they could take to improve accuracy.
Though some experts remain hopeful about “fast-and-frequent” testing, others are skeptical and say more research is needed to assess the value of this approach. “We are open to thinking outside the box and coming up with new ways to handle this pandemic,” Esther Babady PhD, D(ABMM) of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told the New York Times. However, she added, “the data for that is what’s missing.”
Nevertheless, were at-home rapid saliva-based antigen tests to become a common choice for healthcare consumers, clinical laboratories that perform RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 could see a marked decrease in orders. Thus, regardless of the current state of antigen testing, its development is worth watching.
Using GPIIb/IIIa inhibition, and ion chelation, researchers have developed a “universal” method for preserving blood up to 72 hours while keeping it viable for advanced rare-cell applications
However, preserving sample quality is an essential part of analytical accuracy. This is particularly true in precision oncology and other specialties where isolating rare cells (aka, low abundance cells), such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs), is a key component to obtaining information and running diagnostics.
Should further testing validate their findings and methodology, this change could allow greater use of central laboratories and other remote testing facilities that previously would not be available due to distance and sample travel time.
Keeping Blood Alive Is Not Easy
“At Mass. General, we have the luxury of being so integrated with the clinical team that we can process blood specimens in the lab typically within an hour or two after they are drawn,” stated lead author Keith Wong, PhD, former Research Fellow, MGH-CEM, and now Senior Scientist at Rubius Therapeutics, Boston, in a Mass General press release. “But to make these liquid biopsy technologies routine lab tests for the rest of the world, we need ways to keep blood alive for much longer than several hours, since these assays are best performed in central laboratories for reasons of cost-effectiveness and reproducibility.”
Study authors Wong and co-lead author Shannon Tessier, PhD, Investigator at MGH-CEM, noted that current FDA-approved blood stabilization methods for CTC assays use chemical fixation—a process that can result in degradation of sensitive biomolecules and kill the cells within the sample.
Without stabilization, however, breakdown of red cells, activation of leukocytes (white blood cells), and clot formation can render the results of analyzing a sample useless, or create issues with increasingly sensitive equipment used to run assays and diagnostics.
“We wanted to slow down the biological clock as much as possible by using hypothermia, but that is not as simple as it sounds,” says Tessier. “Low temperature is a powerful means to decrease metabolism, but a host of unwanted side effects occur at the same time.”
Researchers started by using hypothermic treatments to slow degradation and cell death. However, this created another obstacle—aggressive platelet coagulation. By introducing glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, they found they could minimize this aggregation.
Keith Wong, PhD (left), a former Research Fellow, MGH-CEM, and now Senior Scientist at Rubius Therapeutics in Boston; and Shannon Tessier, PhD (right), Investigator at MGH-CEM, co-authored a study to develop a whole blood stabilization method that preserves sample integrity for up to 72 hours, making it possible to transport blood specimens further distances to central clinical laboratories for processing. (Photo copyrights: LinkedIn.)
Prior to microfluidic processing of their test samples, researchers applied a brief calcium chelation treatment. The result was efficient sorting of rare CTCs from blood drawn up to 72 hours prior, while keeping RNA intact and retaining cell viability.
“The critical achievement here,” says Tessier, “Is that the isolated tumor cells contain high-quality RNA that is suitable for demanding molecular assays, such as single-cell qPCR, droplet digital PCR, and RNA sequencing.”
Their testing involved 10 patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Sample integrity was verified by comparing CTC analysis results between fresh samples and preserved samples from the same patients using MGH-CEM’s own microfluidic CTC-iChip device.
Results showed a 92% agreement across 12 cancer-specific gene transcripts. For AR-V7, their preservation method achieved 100% agreement. “This is very exciting for clinicians,” declared David Miyamoto, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in the press release. “AR-V7 mRNA can only be detected using CTCs and not with circulating tumor DNA or other cell-free assays.”
Methodology Concerns and Future Confirmations
“Moving forward, an extremely exciting area in precision oncology is the establishment of patient-specific CTC cultures and xenograft models for drug susceptibility,” the study authors noted. “The lack of robust methods to preserve viable CTCs is a major roadblock towards this Holy Grail in liquid biopsy. In our preliminary experiments, we found that spiked tumor cells in blood remain highly viable (>80%) after 72 hours of hypothermic preservation.”
Despite this, they also acknowledge limitations on their current findings. The first is the need for larger-scale validation, as their testing involved a 10-patient sample group.
Second, they note that further studies will be needed to “more completely characterize whole-transcriptome alterations as a result of preservation, and to what extent they can be stabilized through other means, such as further cooling (e.g., non-freezing sub-zero temperatures) or metabolic depression.”
Researchers also note that their approach has multiple advantages for regulatory approval and further testing—GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors are both low-cost and already approved for clinical use, implementation requires no modification of existing isolation assays, and cold chain protocols are already in place allowing for easy adaptation to fit the needs of pathology groups, medical laboratories, and other diagnostics providers handling samples.
While still in its early stages, the methods introduced by the researchers at MGH-CEM show potential to allow both the facilities collecting samples and the clinical laboratories processing them greater flexibility and increased accuracy, as high-sensitivity assays and diagnostics continue to power the push toward personalized medicine and expand laboratory menus across the industry.
Portable devices have potential to analyze DNA and produce results in the field in minutes to hours, eliminating the need to return to a medical laboratory to analyze samples
Pathologists continue to hear about research efforts to create small devices that can perform DNA analysis. In the past year, four research organizations, including one in the United States, one in New Zealand, and two in the U.K., have unveiled several devices that will analyze DNA in the field.
This line of research is of particular interest in developing countries where resources such as electricity for refrigeration are scarce. Some of the DNA testing devices will produce results in minutes to hours, eliminating the need to return to a clinical laboratory to analyze samples.
Mobile Medical Laboratory Designed to Fit in a Pocket(more…)
At the proposed $1,000 price tag, Biomeme’ mobile clinical laboratory device has the potential to challenge diagnostic systems used in central laboratories
Developers say that, when paired with a smartphone, this diagnostic device is similar to traditional medical laboratory technology 10 times its size. Called Biomeme, it is a system that diagnoses diseases like a clinical laboratory—but is just the size of a can of cola. It can identify DNA signatures of bacteria or viruses in a sample of saliva, blood or urine, according to a story that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. (more…)
