Comparison of Nucleic Acid Extraction Methods for a Viral Metagenomics Analysis of Respiratory Viruses

International audienceViral metagenomics next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is increasingly being used to characterize the human virome. The impact of viral nucleic extraction on virome profiling has been poorly studied. Here, we aimed to compare the sensitivity and sample and reagent contamination of three extraction methods used for viral mNGS: two automated platforms (eMAG; MagNA Pure 24, MP24) and the manual QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAamp). Clinical respiratory samples (positive for Respiratory Syncytial Virus or Herpes Simplex Virus), one mock sample (including five viruses isolated from respiratory samples), and a no-template control (NTC) were extracted and processed through an mNGS workflow. QIAamp yielded a lower proportion of viral reads for both clinical and mock samples. The sample cross-contamination was higher when using MP24, with up to 36.09% of the viral reads mapping to mock viruses in the NTC (vs. 1.53% and 1.45% for eMAG and QIAamp, respectively). The highest number of viral reads mapping to bacteriophages in the NTC was found with QIAamp, suggesting reagent contamination. Our results highlight the importance of the extraction method choice for accurate virome characterization

Comparison of Nucleic Acid Extraction Methods for a Viral Metagenomics Analysis of Respiratory Viruses

Viral metagenomics next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is increasingly being used to characterize the human virome. The impact of viral nucleic extraction on virome profiling has been poorly studied. Here, we aimed to compare the sensitivity and sample and reagent contamination of three extraction methods used for viral mNGS: two automated platforms (eMAG; MagNA Pure 24, MP24) and the manual QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAamp). Clinical respiratory samples (positive for Respiratory Syncytial Virus or Herpes Simplex Virus), one mock sample (including five viruses isolated from respiratory samples), and a no-template control (NTC) were extracted and processed through an mNGS workflow. QIAamp yielded a lower proportion of viral reads for both clinical and mock samples. The sample cross-contamination was higher when using MP24, with up to 36.09% of the viral reads mapping to mock viruses in the NTC (vs. 1.53% and 1.45% for eMAG and QIAamp, respectively). The highest number of viral reads mapping to bacteriophages in the NTC was found with QIAamp, suggesting reagent contamination. Our results highlight the importance of the extraction method choice for accurate virome characterization

The Combination of Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) Synergistically Inactivates SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection is the cause of a worldwide pandemic, currently with limited therapeutic options. The spike glycoprotein and envelope protein of SARS-CoV-2, containing disulfide bridges for stabilization, represent an attractive target as they are essential for binding to the ACE2 receptor in host cells present in the nasal mucosa. Bromelain and Acetylcysteine (BromAc) has synergistic action against glycoproteins by breakage of glycosidic linkages and disulfide bonds. We sought to determine the effect of BromAc on the spike and envelope proteins and its potential to reduce infectivity in host cells. Recombinant spike and envelope SARS-CoV-2 proteins were disrupted by BromAc. Spike and envelope protein disulfide bonds were reduced by Acetylcysteine. In in vitro whole virus culture of both wild-type and spike mutants, SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated a concentration-dependent inactivation from BromAc treatment but not from single agents. Clinical testing through nasal administration in patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection is imminent

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of symptomatic healthcare workers with suspected COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

International audienceA comprehensive clinical and microbiological assessments of COVID-19 in front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) is needed. Between April 10th and May 28th, 2020, 319 HCWs with acute illness were reviewed. In addition to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR screening, a multiplex molecular panel was used for testing other respiratory pathogens. For SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, the normalized viral load, viral culture, and virus neutralization assays were performed weekly. For SARS-CoV-2 negative HCWs, SARS-CoV-2 serological testing was performed one month after inclusion. Among the 319 HCWs included, 67 (21.0%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 65/67 (97.0%) developed mild form of COVID-19. Other respiratory pathogens were found in 6/66 (9.1%) SARS-CoV-2 positive and 47/241 (19.5%) SARS-Cov-2 negative HCWs ( p = 0.07). The proportion of HCWs with a viral load > 5.0 log 10 cp/mL (Ct value  37). More than 90% of cultivable virus had a viral load > 4.5 log 10 cp/mL (Ct < 26) and were collected within 10 days after symptom onset. Among negative HCWs, 6/190 (3.2%) seroconverted. Our data suggest that the determination of viral load can be used for appreciating the infectiousness of infected HCWs. These data could be helpful for facilitating their return to work