Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab
It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. We examined the dete...
Saved in:
| Published in | Microbiology spectrum Vol. 10; no. 5; p. e0142222 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
United States
American Society for Microbiology
26.10.2022
|
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Abstract | It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns.
We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing.
IMPORTANCE
It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. ABSTRACT We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen’s kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic.We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva and oropharyngeal swab (OPS) samples from 639 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, of which 47 subjects were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the OPS or saliva sample or both. It was found that the detection rate (93.6% for both OPS and saliva) as well as the sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the two sampling methods in this cohort. The sensitivity was 0.932 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.818 to 0.977) and the specificity was 0.995 (95% CI, 0.985 to 0.998), both for saliva when OPS sampling was used as the reference and for OPS when saliva was used as the reference. Furthermore, the Cohen's kappa value was 0.926 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.985), indicating strong agreement between the two sampling methods. In addition, the viral RNA stability in pure saliva and saliva mixed with preservation buffers was examined following storage at room temperature and at 4°C. It was found that pure saliva kept the viral RNA stable for 9 days at both temperatures and that the type of preservation buffer can either enhance or reduce the stability of the RNA. We conclude that self-administered saliva sampling is an attractive alternative to oropharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and it might be useful in large-scale testing. IMPORTANCE It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for feasible, simple, and flexible screening methods so that schools, workplaces, and communities in general can avoid lockdowns. In this work, we analyzed two different sampling methods: oropharyngeal swabs and saliva collection. Oropharyngeal swabs must be collected by trained health personnel at clinics, whereas self-assisted saliva collection can be performed at any given location. It was found that the two sampling methods were comparable. Saliva sampling is a simple method that allows easy mass testing using minimal resources from the existing health care system, and this method may therefore prove to be an effective tool for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Author | Flugt, Katharina Christensen, Ulf Bech Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent Pilgaard, Pernille Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Mia de Laurent orcidid: 0000-0001-9140-0752 surname: Clemmensen fullname: Clemmensen, Mia de Laurent organization: PentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark – sequence: 2 givenname: Kamilla Kolding orcidid: 0000-0002-6586-6724 surname: Bendixen fullname: Bendixen, Kamilla Kolding organization: PentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark – sequence: 3 givenname: Katharina surname: Flugt fullname: Flugt, Katharina organization: PentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark – sequence: 4 givenname: Pernille orcidid: 0000-0001-7566-6649 surname: Pilgaard fullname: Pilgaard, Pernille organization: PentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark – sequence: 5 givenname: Ulf Bech orcidid: 0000-0003-4777-1972 surname: Christensen fullname: Christensen, Ulf Bech organization: PentaBase A/S, Odense, Denmark |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36129278$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kc1u1DAUhSNUREvpA7BBWbLJYF87cbxBqoa_ShWVmIqtdRPbU48SO9hJEW-P2-mgFglW17o-5_ORz8viyAdviuI1JStKoX2XJtPPcRlXhHKACuBZcQK0qSvCpTh6dD4uzlLaEUIoJTXU8KI4Zg0FCaI9Kb6uwzhhdCn4Mthyc_5tU63D9wrKD2bOD7i8tzGM5QYHd4t5jNPg_LZEr8urGKYbjL_81uBQbn5i96p4bnFI5uxhnhbXnz5er79Ul1efL9bnlxXWhM-VMLRjDUPBNfLaahCW2aYXGtvGSNYS5KLvgEmJ3NQcrRRMtkygpgQA2WlxscfqgDs1RTfmFCqgU_eLELcK4-z6wai6pS1o22nWGm5JLYEToalmtoNGC5lZ7_esaelGo3vj54jDE-jTG-9u1DbcKtkQTlidAW8fADH8WEya1ehSb4YBvQlLUiByE8BYy7N0tZdiGkHtwhJ9_iVFibqrVB0qVfeVKoBsePM43J9UhwKzQOwFfQwpRWNV72a8qy1ndcN_0fQv5wH-b89v9AXDOg |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinmicnews_2023_02_001 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1056/NEJMc2016359 10.1128/Spectrum.00062-21 10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397 10.1093/cid/ciaa1156 10.3390/v12111314 10.1186/s12879-021-06343-w 10.1128/JCM.00776-20 10.3201/eid2704.204199 10.1111/apa.16049 10.1093/cid/ciaa1388 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002176 10.2302/kjm.2021-0003-OA 10.1111/TBED.14280 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.001 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00178-8 10.1038/s41598-021-84059-2 10.1128/JCM.02686-20 10.1155/2022/6478434 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Contributor | wang, Yongbao |
| Contributor_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Yongbao surname: wang fullname: wang, Yongbao |
| Copyright | Copyright © 2022 Clemmensen et al. Copyright © 2022 Clemmensen et al. 2022 Clemmensen et al. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2022 Clemmensen et al. – notice: Copyright © 2022 Clemmensen et al. 2022 Clemmensen et al. |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1128/spectrum.01422-22 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | CrossRef MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Biology |
| EISSN | 2165-0497 |
| Editor | Martinez, Miguel Angel |
| Editor_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Miguel Angel surname: Martinez fullname: Martinez, Miguel Angel |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_58182dfbd38e4f0592407d1d3fb26d79 PMC9604035 01422-22 36129278 10_1128_spectrum_01422_22 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | 53G AAGFI AAUOK AAYXX ADBBV AGVNZ ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS CITATION EJD FF~ FRP GROUPED_DOAJ H13 M~E OK1 RPM RSF CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM EBS UCJ 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a504t-7e1b363a74da45fd27f3f6c7da86e9380a47cb2399a4e54af9739837ad1022a3 |
| IEDL.DBID | AAUOK |
| ISSN | 2165-0497 |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:30:42 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:38:51 EDT 2025 Thu Jul 10 22:35:22 EDT 2025 Thu Oct 27 05:09:25 EDT 2022 Mon Jul 21 06:02:16 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 00:42:38 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 22:51:04 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 5 |
| Keywords | COVID-19 saliva RNA stability SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR oropharyngeal swab |
| Language | English |
| License | This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a504t-7e1b363a74da45fd27f3f6c7da86e9380a47cb2399a4e54af9739837ad1022a3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 The authors declare a conflict of interest. During the study, the authors worked at PentaBase A/S, Denmark, who supply RT-qPCR assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in OPS, NPS, or saliva samples. |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6586-6724 0000-0001-7566-6649 0000-0001-9140-0752 0000-0003-4777-1972 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01422-22 |
| PMID | 36129278 |
| PQID | 2716523384 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 8 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_58182dfbd38e4f0592407d1d3fb26d79 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9604035 proquest_miscellaneous_2716523384 asm2_journals_10_1128_spectrum_01422_22 pubmed_primary_36129278 crossref_citationtrail_10_1128_spectrum_01422_22 crossref_primary_10_1128_spectrum_01422_22 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2022-10-26 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-10-26 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 10 year: 2022 text: 2022-10-26 day: 26 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: 1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC |
| PublicationTitle | Microbiology spectrum |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | Microbiol Spectr |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Microbiol Spectr |
| PublicationYear | 2022 |
| Publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
| Publisher_xml | – name: American Society for Microbiology |
| References | e_1_3_2_26_2 e_1_3_2_27_2 e_1_3_2_28_2 e_1_3_2_20_2 e_1_3_2_21_2 e_1_3_2_22_2 e_1_3_2_23_2 e_1_3_2_24_2 e_1_3_2_25_2 e_1_3_2_9_2 e_1_3_2_15_2 e_1_3_2_8_2 e_1_3_2_16_2 e_1_3_2_7_2 e_1_3_2_17_2 e_1_3_2_6_2 e_1_3_2_18_2 e_1_3_2_19_2 e_1_3_2_10_2 e_1_3_2_5_2 e_1_3_2_11_2 e_1_3_2_4_2 e_1_3_2_12_2 e_1_3_2_3_2 e_1_3_2_13_2 e_1_3_2_2_2 e_1_3_2_14_2 Baratloo A (e_1_3_2_29_2) 2015; 3 Rao, M, Rashid, FA, Sabri, FSAH, Jamil, NN, Zain, R, Hashim, R, Amran, F, Kok, HT, Samad, MAA, Ahmad, N (B4) 2021; 72 Saegerman, C, Donneau, A-F, Speybroeck, N, Diep, AN, Williams, A, Stamatakis, L, Coppieters, W, Michel, F, Breuer, C, Dandoy, M, Ek, O, Gourzones, C, Schyns, J, Goffin, E, Minner, F, Renault, V, Gillet, L, Bureau, F (B10) 2022; 69 Bulfoni, M, Sozio, E, Marcon, B, De Martino, M, Cesselli, D, De Carlo, C, Martinella, R, Migotti, A, Vania, E, Zanus-Fortes, A, De Piero, J, Nencioni, E, Tascini, C, Isola, M, Curcio, F (B24) 2022; 2022 B25 B26 B27 Kandel, C, Zheng, J, McCready, J, Serbanescu, MA, Racher, H, Desaulnier, M, Powis, JE, Vojdani, K, Finlay, L, Sheldrake, E, Vermeiren, C, Katz, K, McGeer, A, Kozak, R, Goneau, LW (B17) 2020; 12 Baratloo, A, Hosseini, M, Negida, A, El Ashal, G (B28) 2015; 3 von Linstow, M-L, Kruse, A, Kirkby, N, Søes, LM, Nygaard, U, Poulsen, A (B21) 2021; 110 Yokota, I, Shane, PY, Okada, K, Unoki, Y, Yang, Y, Inao, T, Sakamaki, K, Iwasaki, S, Hayasaka, K, Sugita, J, Nishida, M, Fujisawa, S, Teshima, T (B9) 2021; 73 Sasikala, M, Sadhana, Y, Vijayasarathy, K, Gupta, A, Daram, SK, Podduturi, NCR, Reddy, DN (B20) 2021; 21 Oba, J, Taniguchi, H, Sato, M, Takamatsu, R, Morikawa, S, Nakagawa, T, Takaishi, H, Saya, H, Matsuo, K, Nishihara, H (B12) 2021; 70 Tan, SH, Allicock, O, Armstrong-Hough, M, Wyllie, AL (B5) 2021; 9 Girón-Pérez, DA, Ruiz-Manzano, RA, Benitez-Trinidad, AB, Ventura-Ramón, GH, Covantes-Rosales, CE, Ojeda-Durán, AJ, Mercado-Salgado, U, Toledo-Ibarra, GA, Díaz-Reséndiz, KJ, Girón-Pérez, MI (B11) 2021; 63 Williams, E, Bond, K, Zhang, B, Putland, M, Williamson, DA (B19) 2020; 58 B14 B15 Yee, R, Truong, TT, Pannaraj, PS, Eubanks, N, Gai, E, Jumarang, J, Turner, L, Peralta, A, Lee, Y, Dien Bard, J (B22) 2021; 59 Wyllie, AL, Fournier, J, Casanovas-Massana, A, Campbell, M, Tokuyama, M, Vijayakumar, P, Warren, JL, Geng, B, Muenker, MC, Moore, AJ, Vogels, CBF, Petrone, ME, Ott, IM, Lu, P, Venkataraman, A, Lu-Culligan, A, Klein, J, Earnest, R, Simonov, M, Datta, R, Handoko, R, Naushad, N, Sewanan, LR, Valdez, J, White, EB, Lapidus, S, Kalinich, CC, Jiang, X, Kim, DJ, Kudo, E, Linehan, M, Mao, T, Moriyama, M, Oh, JE, Park, A, Silva, J, Song, E, Takahashi, T, Taura, M, Weizman, O-E, Wong, P, Yang, Y, Bermejo, S, Odio, CD, Omer, SB, Dela Cruz, CS, Farhadian, S, Martinello, RA, Iwasaki, A, Grubaugh, ND (B6) 2020; 383 Yokota, I, Hattori, T, Shane, PY, Konno, S, Nagasaka, A, Takeyabu, K, Fujisawa, S, Nishida, M, Teshima, T (B18) 2021; 11 B2 Pasomsub, E, Watcharananan, SP, Boonyawat, K, Janchompoo, P, Wongtabtim, G, Suksuwan, W, Sungkanuparph, S, Phuphuakrat, A (B16) 2021; 27 B3 Fan, G, Qin, X, Streblow, DN, Hoyos, CM, Hansel, DE (B13) 2021; 9 B7 B8 Cucinotta, D, Vanelli, M (B1) 2020; 91 Ott, IM, Strine, MS, Watkins, AE, Boot, M, Kalinich, CC, Harden, CA, Vogels, CBF, Casanovas-Massana, A, Moore, AJ, Muenker, MC, Nakahata, M, Tokuyama, M, Nelson, A, Fournier, J, Bermejo, S, Campbell, M, Datta, R, Dela Cruz, CS, Farhadian, SF, Ko, AI, Iwasaki, A, Grubaugh, ND, Wilen, CB, Wyllie, AL (B23) 2021; 27 |
| References_xml | – ident: e_1_3_2_7_2 doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2016359 – ident: e_1_3_2_15_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_14_2 doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00062-21 – volume: 3 start-page: 48 year: 2015 ident: e_1_3_2_29_2 article-title: Part 1: simple definition and calculation of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity publication-title: Emerg (Tehran) – ident: e_1_3_2_2_2 doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397 – ident: e_1_3_2_9_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_5_2 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1156 – ident: e_1_3_2_18_2 doi: 10.3390/v12111314 – ident: e_1_3_2_21_2 doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06343-w – ident: e_1_3_2_3_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_20_2 doi: 10.1128/JCM.00776-20 – ident: e_1_3_2_4_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_24_2 doi: 10.3201/eid2704.204199 – ident: e_1_3_2_26_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_8_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_22_2 doi: 10.1111/apa.16049 – ident: e_1_3_2_10_2 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1388 – ident: e_1_3_2_12_2 doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002176 – ident: e_1_3_2_13_2 doi: 10.2302/kjm.2021-0003-OA – ident: e_1_3_2_28_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_11_2 doi: 10.1111/TBED.14280 – ident: e_1_3_2_17_2 doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.001 – ident: e_1_3_2_27_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_6_2 doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00178-8 – ident: e_1_3_2_19_2 doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84059-2 – ident: e_1_3_2_23_2 doi: 10.1128/JCM.02686-20 – ident: e_1_3_2_16_2 – ident: e_1_3_2_25_2 doi: 10.1155/2022/6478434 – volume: 70 start-page: 35 year: 2021 end-page: 43 ident: B12 article-title: RT-PCR screening tests for SARS-CoV-2 with saliva samples in asymptomatic people: strategy to maintain social and economic activities while reducing the risk of spreading the virus publication-title: Keio J Med doi: 10.2302/kjm.2021-0003-OA – ident: B26 article-title: PentaBase A/S . 2021 . CoviDetect TM FAST COVID-19 Multiplex RT-qPCR assay - Instructions For Use ver 1.7 . https://5ba.se/CD002 . – volume: 9 year: 2021 ident: B13 article-title: Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-based detection using saliva or nasopharyngeal swab specimens in asymptomatic populations publication-title: Microbiol Spectr doi: 10.1128/Spectrum.00062-21 – volume: 383 start-page: 1283 year: 2020 end-page: 1286 ident: B6 article-title: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2 publication-title: N Engl J Med doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2016359 – volume: 27 start-page: 1146 year: 2021 end-page: 1150 ident: B23 article-title: Stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nonsupplemented saliva publication-title: Emerg Infect Dis doi: 10.3201/eid2704.204199 – volume: 58 year: 2020 ident: B19 article-title: Saliva as a noninvasive specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2 publication-title: J Clin Microbiol doi: 10.1128/JCM.00776-20 – ident: B25 article-title: Ritchie H , Mathieu E , Rodés-Guirao L , Appel C , Giattino C , Ortiz-Ospina E , Hasell J , Macdonald B , Beltekian D , Roser M . 2020 . Denmark: coronavirus pandemic country profile . Our World in Data . https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/denmark#the-scale-of-testing-compared-to-the-scale-of-the-outbreak . Accessed 29 March 2022. – ident: B7 article-title: World Health Organization . 26 November 2021 . Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern . https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern . – volume: 12 start-page: 1314 year: 2020 ident: B17 article-title: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva as compared to nasopharyngeal swabs in outpatients publication-title: Viruses doi: 10.3390/v12111314 – volume: 59 year: 2021 ident: B22 article-title: Saliva is a promising alternative specimen for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults publication-title: J Clin Microbiol doi: 10.1128/JCM.02686-20 – ident: B3 article-title: Pfizer Inc., BioNTech . 8 July 2021 . Pfizer and BioNTech provide update on booster program in light of the Delta-variant . https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2021-07/Delta_Variant_Study_Press_Statement_Final_7.8.21.pdf . – volume: 73 start-page: e559 year: 2021 end-page: e565 ident: B9 article-title: Mass screening of asymptomatic persons for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using saliva publication-title: Clin Infect Dis doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1388 – ident: B2 article-title: Pfizer Inc . 18 November 2020 . Pfizer and BioNTech conclude phase 3 study of COVID-19 vaccine candidate, meeting all primary efficacy endpoints . https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine . – volume: 72 start-page: e352 year: 2021 end-page: e356 ident: B4 article-title: Comparing nasopharyngeal swab and early morning saliva for the identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) publication-title: Clin Infect Dis doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1156 – volume: 69 start-page: e194 year: 2022 end-page: e203 ident: B10 article-title: Repetitive saliva-based mass screening as a tool for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in nursing homes publication-title: Transbound Emerg Dis doi: 10.1111/TBED.14280 – volume: 27 start-page: 285.e1 year: 2021 end-page: 285.e4 ident: B16 article-title: Saliva sample as a non-invasive specimen for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a cross-sectional study publication-title: Clin Microbiol Infect doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.001 – volume: 110 start-page: 3325 year: 2021 end-page: 3326 ident: B21 article-title: Saliva is inferior to nose and throat swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection in children publication-title: Acta Paediatr doi: 10.1111/apa.16049 – volume: 91 start-page: 157 year: 2020 end-page: 160 ident: B1 article-title: WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic publication-title: Acta Biomed doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i1.9397 – volume: 21 start-page: 648 year: 2021 ident: B20 article-title: Comparison of saliva with healthcare workers- and patient-collected swabs in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a large cohort publication-title: BMC Infect Dis doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06343-w – volume: 9 start-page: 562 year: 2021 end-page: 564 ident: B5 article-title: Saliva as a gold-standard sample for SARS-CoV-2 detection publication-title: Lancet Respir Med doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00178-8 – volume: 63 start-page: 541 year: 2021 end-page: 547 ident: B11 article-title: Saliva pooling strategy for the large-scale detection of SARS-CoV-2, through working-groups testing of asymptomatic subjects for potential applications in different workplaces publication-title: J Occup Environ Med doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002176 – ident: B27 article-title: R Core Team . 2021 . R: a language and environment for statistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing , Vienna, Austria . https://www.r-project.org . – ident: B15 article-title: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control . 3 May 2021 . Considerations for the use of saliva as sample material for COVID-19 testing . https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/considerations-use-saliva-sample-material-covid-19-testing . – ident: B14 article-title: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Government of Japan . 2021 . Requirements for certificate of testing for entering Japan, April 2021 . – volume: 2022 start-page: 6478434 year: 2022 ident: B24 article-title: Validation of a saliva-based test for the molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection publication-title: Dis Markers doi: 10.1155/2022/6478434 – volume: 11 start-page: 4500 year: 2021 ident: B18 article-title: Equivalent SARS-CoV-2 viral loads by PCR between nasopharyngeal swab and saliva in symptomatic patients publication-title: Sci Rep doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84059-2 – ident: B8 article-title: Ferguson N , Ghani A , Cori A , Hogan A , Hinsley W , Volz E , Imperial College London . 2021 . Report 49: growth, population distribution and immune escape of Omicron in England . doi: 10.25561/93038 . – volume: 3 start-page: 48 year: 2015 end-page: 49 ident: B28 article-title: Part 1: simple definition and calculation of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity publication-title: Emerg (Tehran) |
| SSID | ssj0001105252 |
| Score | 2.2403169 |
| Snippet | It is not inconceivable that we will witness recurring surges of COVID-19 before the pandemic finally recedes. It is therefore still relevant to look for... We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of side-by-side saliva... ABSTRACT We examined the detection rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) of... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest asm2 pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
| StartPage | e0142222 |
| SubjectTerms | Communicable Disease Control COVID-19 COVID-19 - diagnosis COVID-19 Testing Humans oropharyngeal swab Pandemics Research Article RNA stability RNA, Viral RT-qPCR Saliva SARS-CoV-2 Specimen Handling - methods Virology |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3daxQxEA9yIPgifrtVSwRBEGJ387HZfWxPSxGs4FXpW0g2SVtos-XuivS_dya7d9yJ1BefFnYTNkwmmd98E_JOiOBqj4YqW7VMqqphDtiYcd_pTji4Hh16dL8e10c_5JdTdbrR6gtjwobywAPh9hRIFO6j86IJMgIYQBXEV15Ex2uvc-oeyLwNZSpbVyrsz8ZHNybcwXs5cXF-c_WxRKsHw2a5E7u44lvyKJft_xvW_DNkckMGHT4iD0fwSPeHRT8m90J6Qu4P7SRvn5Lj6bqpIO0jne1_n7Fp_5Nx-iksc8hVophOQmcWHUDwwHDydEZt8vTbvL8-t_PbdAbQkc5-WfeMnBx-PpkesbFfArOqlEumQ-VELayW3koVPddRxLrT3jZ1aEVTWqk7h8msVgYlbWy1aEFBtR7VPiuek0nqU3hJqAMY4IIFYntALGVsy1DHKCWXdaOUKwvyHmlnRn5fmKxK8MasqGwylQ3nBSlX5DXdWHUcm19c3jXlw3rK9VBy467BB7hn64FYLTu_AB4yIw-Zf_FQQd6udtzA6UKXiU2hv1kYDuokqOqikQV5MXDA-lcCwGHLdVMQvcUbW2vZ_pIuznMFb6yIUwq18z8W_4o84JiSAfKU16_JBMgT3gBQWrrdfCZ-AyXOD9A priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Title | Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Detection from Saliva Sampling and Oropharyngeal Swab |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36129278 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01422-22 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2716523384 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9604035 https://doaj.org/article/58182dfbd38e4f0592407d1d3fb26d79 |
| Volume | 10 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Za9wwEBYhodCX0rvuEVQoFApO7dHpx-02IaQ0gW5S8iYkS0oKjR12N5T8-468ttsNIeTJYEvIzCF9M6OZIeQDY8FJnxxVtqxyLkqdOxTjHHytauZwe3Qpovv9UO6f8INTcbpB5JAL01NwsWMXF10gf9Rs0J-75MP51cVOkTwXOeDWuyWg4qiQW5PJydG3f96VMvVngz6Meetc3INxDVg7j7qy_bdhzZtXJv87g_Yek0c9eKSTFbefkI3QPCUPVu0kr5-Rw-nYVJC2kc4mP2b5tP2ZA_0alt2Vq4amdBI6sykAhI90nbw5o7bx9GjeXp7b-XVzhtCRzv5Y95wc7-0eT_fzvl9CbkXBl7kKpWOSWcW95SJ6UJFFWStvtQwV04XlqnYpmdXyILiNlWIVGqjWJ7PPshdks2mb8IpQhzDABSsq8IhYilgVQcbIOXCphXBFRj4m2pmBW6YzJUCbgcqmo7IByEgxkNfUfdXx1Pzi911TPo1TLlclN-4a_CXxbByYqmV3L1B2TK98RiAqAR-dZzrwiIAymbG-9Cw6kF5VGXk_cNygdqWQiW1Ce7UwgOYkmupM84y8XEnAuBRDcFiB0hlRa7Kx9i_rX5pf510F71QRp2Di9b3J-IY8hJR3gYcmyLdkEz-Gd4iGlm67F_3tzpvwFwo8CGo |
| linkProvider | American Society for Microbiology |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3da9swEBejZWwvY91X3a2bBoPBwJ2tD0t-TLOVbG1TWNLRNyFZUrvS2iVJGf3ve-c42TJK2ZPBlpA53Um_-ybkA-fBFR4NVTYvUyFznTpg45T5SlXcwfHo0KN7OCwGx-L7iTzpoioxF-Yc-_JeTHfs9LL146NgoyG660eoP7cJiJPry50MrRcpg-N3HX2HoHit93rHR_t_LCw59mhjnSvzzrlwDsNCbOVOakv334U3_w2b_Ose2ntKnnQAkvbmO75BHoT6GXk4byl585wM-8vGgrSJdNT7MUr7zc-U0S9h1oZd1RRTSujIohMIHhhSXp9SW3t6NGmuzuzkpj4F-EhHv617QcZ7X8f9Qdr1TEitzMQsVSF3vOBWCW-FjJ6pyGNRKW91EUquMytU5TCh1YoghY2l4iUoqdaj6mf5S7JWN3XYJNQBFHDBypJ5QC1ZLLNQxCgEE4WW0mUJ-Yi0Mx3PT02rTjBtFlQ2LZUNYwnJFuQ1VVd5HBtgXNw35dNyytW87MZ9g3dxz5YDsWJ2-wIYyHQCaCQgE-aj81wHEQFUoirrc8-jY4VXZULeL3bcgISh28TWobmeGgYqJajrXIuEvJpzwHIpDgCxZEonRK3wxsq_rH6pf521VbyxKk7G5dZ_k_EdeTQYHx6Yg2_D_dfkMcM8DLhEWfGGrMHAsA3oaObedmJwC2QzC9g |
| linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1bb9MwFLZQJxAvE-O2DAZGQkJCykh8iZPH0lENBh2iG9qbZcf2NmlzqrYT2r_nnDQtFE0TT5ESW47Oxf6Oz42Qt5x7Wzi8qDJ5lQqZl6kFMU6Zq1XNLWyPFj2630bFwYn4cipPu6hKzIXpKDjbM7Or1pGPmj1xoetHWH5oExCn11d7Gd5epAy2343WWdUjG_3-ydHhnxuWHHu0sc6Veetc2IdhHbZ2JrWl-2_Dm_-GTf51Dg0fkc0OQNL-guNb5J6Pj8n9RUvJmydkNFg1FqRNoOP-j3E6aH6mjO77eRt2FSmmlNCxQScQPDCkPJ5REx09mjaTczO9iWcAH-n4l7FPyfHw0_HgIO16JqRGZmKeKp9bXnCjhDNCBsdU4KGolTNl4SteZkao2mJCqxFeChMqxSswUo1D08_wZ6QXm-i3CbUABaw3smIOUEsWqswXIQjBRFFKabOEvEPa6SXHdGtOsFIvqaxbKmvGEpItyavrrvI4NsC4vGvK-9WUyaLsxl2DPyLPVgOxYnb7AuRHdwqoJSAT5oJ1vPQiAKhEU9bljgfLCqeqhLxZclyDhqHbxETfXM80A5MSzHVeioQ8X0jAaikOALFiqkyIWpONtX9Z_xIvztsq3lgVJ-Ny57_J-Jo8-L4_1F8_jw5fkIcM0zDgDGXFS9KDcX4XwNHcvuq04Dc7cwt0 |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+SARS-CoV-2+Detection+from+Saliva+Sampling+and+Oropharyngeal+Swab&rft.jtitle=Microbiology+spectrum&rft.au=Clemmensen%2C+Mia+de+Laurent&rft.au=Bendixen%2C+Kamilla+Kolding&rft.au=Flugt%2C+Katharina&rft.au=Pilgaard%2C+Pernille&rft.date=2022-10-26&rft.issn=2165-0497&rft.eissn=2165-0497&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0142222&rft_id=info:doi/10.1128%2Fspectrum.01422-22&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2165-0497&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2165-0497&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2165-0497&client=summon |