Wastewater-based protocols for SARS-CoV-2: insights into virus concentration, extraction, and quantitation methods from two years of public health surveillance†

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Dagmara S. Antkiewicz, Kayley H. Janssen, Adélaïde Roguet, Hannah E. Pilch, Rebecca B. Fahney, Paige A. Mullen, Griffin N. Knuth, Devin G. Everett, Evelyn M. Doolittle, Kaitlyn King, Carter Wood, Angellica Stanley, Jocelyn D. C. Hemming and Martin M. Shafer
{"title":"Wastewater-based protocols for SARS-CoV-2: insights into virus concentration, extraction, and quantitation methods from two years of public health surveillance†","authors":"Dagmara S. Antkiewicz, Kayley H. Janssen, Adélaïde Roguet, Hannah E. Pilch, Rebecca B. Fahney, Paige A. Mullen, Griffin N. Knuth, Devin G. Everett, Evelyn M. Doolittle, Kaitlyn King, Carter Wood, Angellica Stanley, Jocelyn D. C. Hemming and Martin M. Shafer","doi":"10.1039/D3EW00958K","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development and application of wastewater-based disease surveillance (WBS) as a tool for public health practice. The wide variety of WBS methods currently in use hinders the ability to compare data between different laboratories and limits the potential of nationwide surveillance programs. In this study, we conducted a systematic analysis to identify among widely used concentration, extraction and quantification methods, which ones would perform well for WBS of SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated electronegative filtration, one of the traditional methods applied early in the pandemic, to other methods including direct capture, magnetic affinity particles and PEG. Our results indicated that these alternative concentration methods quantify SARS-CoV-2 just as effective if not better compared to membrane filtration. We also identified the effect that filtration flow rate, volume filtered, and bead beating parameters have on viral target recovery. The evaluation of different extraction methods demonstrated that an automatic paramagnetic bead-based method performs better than the column-based method tested. In addition, we compared the quantification between RT-qPCR and RT-dPCR, and while both perform well, we documented that RT-dPCR has a lower LOD and can provide more accurate data. Lastly, we compared three weeks of side-by-side wastewater surveillance by two different, but currently commonly applied approaches: HA filtration quantified by RT-qPCR and Ceres Nanotrap® Microbiome A Particles quantified by RT-dPCR. On average, we found a 3.6-fold difference in SARS-CoV-2 levels between the two approaches and observed that the N1 : N2 ratio was closer to one with Nanotrap® particle concentration quantified by RT-dPCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/ew/d3ew00958k?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/ew/d3ew00958k","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development and application of wastewater-based disease surveillance (WBS) as a tool for public health practice. The wide variety of WBS methods currently in use hinders the ability to compare data between different laboratories and limits the potential of nationwide surveillance programs. In this study, we conducted a systematic analysis to identify among widely used concentration, extraction and quantification methods, which ones would perform well for WBS of SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated electronegative filtration, one of the traditional methods applied early in the pandemic, to other methods including direct capture, magnetic affinity particles and PEG. Our results indicated that these alternative concentration methods quantify SARS-CoV-2 just as effective if not better compared to membrane filtration. We also identified the effect that filtration flow rate, volume filtered, and bead beating parameters have on viral target recovery. The evaluation of different extraction methods demonstrated that an automatic paramagnetic bead-based method performs better than the column-based method tested. In addition, we compared the quantification between RT-qPCR and RT-dPCR, and while both perform well, we documented that RT-dPCR has a lower LOD and can provide more accurate data. Lastly, we compared three weeks of side-by-side wastewater surveillance by two different, but currently commonly applied approaches: HA filtration quantified by RT-qPCR and Ceres Nanotrap® Microbiome A Particles quantified by RT-dPCR. On average, we found a 3.6-fold difference in SARS-CoV-2 levels between the two approaches and observed that the N1 : N2 ratio was closer to one with Nanotrap® particle concentration quantified by RT-dPCR.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于废水的 SARS-CoV-2 协议:从两年的公共卫生监测中对病毒浓度、提取和定量方法的认识
正在流行的 COVID-19 大流行加速了以废水为基础的疾病监测 (WBS) 作为公共卫生实践工具的开发和应用。目前使用的 WBS 方法种类繁多,妨碍了不同实验室之间的数据比较,限制了全国性监测计划的潜力。在本研究中,我们进行了一项系统分析,以确定在广泛使用的浓缩、提取和定量方法中,哪些方法能很好地用于 SARS-CoV-2 的 WBS。我们对电负性过滤法(大流行早期使用的传统方法之一)和其他方法(包括直接捕获、磁性亲和颗粒和 PEG)进行了评估。我们的结果表明,与膜过滤法相比,这些替代浓缩方法对 SARS-CoV-2 的定量效果不相上下,甚至更好。我们还确定了过滤流速、过滤体积和微珠跳动参数对病毒目标回收率的影响。对不同提取方法的评估表明,基于顺磁珠的自动提取法比所测试的柱式提取法效果更好。此外,我们还比较了 RT-qPCR 和 RT-dPCR 的定量结果,虽然两者的表现都很好,但我们发现 RT-dPCR 的 LOD 更低,能提供更准确的数据。最后,我们比较了两种不同但目前常用的废水监测方法的三周并行监测结果:通过 RT-qPCR 定量的 HA 过滤和通过 RT-dPCR 定量的 Ceres Nanotrap® 微生物组 A 颗粒。我们发现这两种方法的 SARS-CoV-2 水平平均相差 3.6 倍,并观察到 N1 :通过 RT-dPCR 定量的 Nanotrap® 颗粒浓度的 N1 : N2 比率更接近于 1。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信