Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Partial ORF1ab Gene Target Failure with Omicron BA.2.12.1

Kyle G. Rodino, David R. Peaper, Brendan J. Kelly, View ORCID ProfileFrederic Bushman, Andrew Marques, Hriju Adhikari, Zheng Jin Tu, Rebecca Marrero Rolon, Lars F. Westblade, Daniel A. Green, Gregory J. Berry, Fann Wu, Medini K. Annavajhala, Anne-Catrin Uhlemann, Bijal A. Parikh, Tracy McMillen, Krupa Jani, N. Esther Babady, Anne M. Hahn, Robert T. Koch, Nathan D. Grubaugh, Yale SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance Initiative, Daniel D. Rhoads
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.25.22274187
Kyle G. Rodino
1Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Kyle.rodino@pennmedicine.upenn.edu
David R. Peaper
2Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brendan J. Kelly
3Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine and Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frederic Bushman
4Department of Microbiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Frederic Bushman
Andrew Marques
4Department of Microbiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hriju Adhikari
4Department of Microbiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zheng Jin Tu
5Department of Laboratory Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Marrero Rolon
6Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars F. Westblade
6Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
7Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel A. Green
8Department of Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory J. Berry
8Department of Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fann Wu
8Department of Pathology & Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Medini K. Annavajhala
9Division of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne-Catrin Uhlemann
9Division of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bijal A. Parikh
10Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tracy McMillen
11Clinical Microbiology Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Krupa Jani
11Clinical Microbiology Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Esther Babady
11Clinical Microbiology Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
12Infectious Disease Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne M. Hahn
13Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert T. Koch
13Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathan D. Grubaugh
13Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
14Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel D. Rhoads
5Department of Laboratory Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
15Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
16Infection Biology Program, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Mutations in the viral genome of SARS-CoV-2 can impact the performance of molecular diagnostic assays. In some cases, such as S gene target failure, the impact can serve as a unique indicator of a particular SARS-CoV-2 variant and provide a method for rapid detection. Here we describe partial ORF1ab gene target failure (pOGTF) on the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assays, defined by a ≥2 thermocycles delay in detection of the ORF1ab gene compared to the E gene. We demonstrate that pOGTF is 97% sensitive and 99% specific for SARS-CoV-2 lineage BA.2.12.1, an emerging variant in the United States with spike L452Q and S704L mutations that may impact transmission, infectivity, and/or immune evasion. Increasing rates of pOGTF closely mirrored rates of BA.2.12.1 sequences uploaded to public databases, and, importantly increasing local rates of pOGTF also mirrored increasing overall test positivity. Use of pOGTF as a proxy for BA.2.12.1 provides faster tracking of the variant than whole-genome sequencing and can benefit laboratories without sequencing capabilities.

Introduction

Mutations in the primer/probe binding sites of the SARS-CoV-2 genome can impact oligonucleotide binding and molecular test performance. Throughout the pandemic a number of such mutations have been described, resulting in partial or complete PCR target failure (1). Mutations that impair diagnostic detection is a criterion that the United States (US) Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers when classifying a novel SARS-CoV-2 lineage as a Variant of Concern (2). Most nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) used for in vitro diagnostic (IVD) clinical testing and which have received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employ multi-target assay design. This limits the diagnostic impact of a SARS-CoV-2 mutation that causes single-target failure, as the additional primer/probe target sequences remain unaltered and adequately detect the presence of viral nucleic acid.

Viral mutations can negatively impact assay performance, but these phenomena have proven useful in certain situations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of SARS-CoV-2 remains inadequately implemented or unavailable in many medical centers across the US due to logistical, cost, and time constraints. Moreover, full genomic characterization of circulating variants often takes multiple weeks from sample collection to data reporting to public health agencies. Specific mutations that yield unique NAAT performance characteristics can provide broader and more rapid assessment of circulating lineages than WGS. For example, the well characterized six base pair deletion in the spike gene resulting in the absence of amino acids H69/V70 (69-70del) results in complete loss of detection of the spike gene target on the Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath™ COVID-19 assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA), commonly termed S-Gene Target Failure (SGTF). SGTF was a hallmark of the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant allowing for sequence-free estimation of Alpha’s emergence and prevalence in early 2021 (3). Utility in tracking SGTF was observed in late 2021 with the introduction of the Omicron (B.1.1.529.1 [BA.1]) variant, which contained the same characteristic 69-70del. Rapid estimation of Omicron emergence was possible as the preceding dominant variant, Delta, did not harbor the 69-70del and was therefore S-Gene Target Positive (SGTP) (4). Finally, in early 2022, SGTF tracking proved useful in monitoring the transition from BA.1 Omicron to BA.2 Omicron (B.1.1.529.2), as the latter lacked the 69-70del and was SGTP, which served as a reliable proxy for identifying BA.2 (5).

While the impact of the 69-70del was dramatic, resulting in complete SGTF, other genomic mutations may result in subtler changes including abnormal variance between cycle threshold (CT) values of multi-target SASR-CoV-2 assays (6-10). Here, we describe partial ORF1ab Gene Target Failure (pOGTF) as detected by abnormal delta of the CT values from the E and ORF1ab (dEO) targets of the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assay and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assay (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Branchburg, NJ) linked to BA.2.12.1, which has rapidly emerged in the US in March-April 2022 and has become the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage in central New York state (11).

Materials and Methods

Study Population

Samples used in this study included upper respiratory specimens (e.g., nasopharyngeal, anterior nares, nasal swabs, and saliva) collected in a transport medium validated by the individual testing laboratory, obtained from patients undergoing standard of care testing for COVID-19 between March 6, 2022 and April 16, 2022, a period of time corresponding to MMWR epidemiologic weeks 10 to 15 (12). Samples included in the dEO analysis were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assay or cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays at the originating laboratory. Samples sent for SARS-CoV-2 WGS may have been tested on a variety of other FDA EUA-approved SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic platforms, and not a cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assay, depending on workflows and testing protocols of the originating laboratory. Laboratories contributing to this study and appropriate IRB determination include the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) Clinical Microbiology Laboratory (IRB #18-318), the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory of Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) (IRB #AAT0123), the Clinical Microbiology and SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing Laboratories at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) (IRB #848605), the Clinical Microbiology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) (IRB #18-491), the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory of Weill Cornell Medical Center (WCMC) (IRB #20-03021671), the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Molecular Infectious Disease Laboratory and Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) (IRB #20211131), and Clinical Virology Laboratory at Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH) and Yale School of Public Health (IRB #2000031374).

cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assays

The cobas® SARS-CoV-2 and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays are available on the Roche cobas® 6800 and 8800 analyzers (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.). Both assays perform qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 using two genome targets; the ORF1ab gene that is specific to SARS-CoV-2 and the pan-Sarbecovirus envelope (E) gene. Details on the oligonucleotide sequences and the specific genomic regions targeted by the NAAT are not publicly available. MS2 bacteriophage is used as an internal RNA processing control. RNA extraction, reverse transcription, target amplification, and result analysis all occur on the instrument. Positive results are determined by amplification curves that cross a predetermined threshold thus generating CT values for these loci. These CT values are available to the laboratory, but are not included in patient reports by any of the performing laboratories. Only qualitative interpretations (SARS-CoV-2 detected, not detected, or presumptive positive) of the results are reported, which is congruent with the EUA instructions for use. Samples do not have to be positive for both gene targets to be called positive by the assay. However, only results positive for both targets were used in this study to allow for CT value comparison. CT values used in this study as well as dates of sample collection and/or testing were either directly obtained from instruments or extracted from the laboratory information system depending on the testing laboratory.

Identification of samples as dEO outliers

Initial recognition of dEO was determined by manual review of CT values, noticing ≥1 or ≥2 cycle difference, between the ORF1ab and E CT values, with ORF1ab CT value > E gene CT value, depending on the institution. At HUP we modeled the expected difference in CT values between two parallel targets as a function of the minimum observed CT value in the pair, in order to accommodate the observation that the expected difference in CT values across targets increases at higher CT values. The expected variation in the CT value difference was likewise allowed to vary with the minimum observed CT value in the pair. Bayesian mixed-effect linear regression models, incorporating random effects (slope and intercept) for sequencing platform (i.e., amplicon-target pair), were fit using Stan Hamiltonian Monte Carlo via the brms package in R (13, 14). Model parameters were established using CT value data collected across seven platforms from March to June 2021, and the parameterized model was used to monitor for dEO (and other target pair) outliers, with outliers identified as differences beyond the 99% posterior credible interval of the expected CT value difference for the minimum CT value observed in the pair. Model code and sample reproducible report are available at: https://github.com/bjklab/SARS-CoV-2_Ct_report.

SARS-CoV-2 Whole-Genome Sequencing

At CCF, NGS sequencing libraries were prepared with Illumina COVIDSeq Test kit according to the manufacture’s recommendation. These libraries were sequenced paired end with read length 151 bases using a NextSeq550 instrument (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Data analysis was performed with an in-house developed bioinformatics pipeline. Sequence reads were mapped to reference genome Wuhan-Hu-1 (NC_045512.2) using BWA (version 0.7.15), variant calling was performed with both Freebayes (version 1.3.4) and LoFreq (version 2.1.5). Average coverage is x6567 and minimum coverage for mutation is x10. Samples below this minimum coverage at the S gene codon 452 were considered unreliable, and these genotypes were not considered in this study. Manual review of mutations was performed with Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV) to remove any artifacts. Variant classification was performed with the Pangolin program (https://pangolin.cog-uk.io/ version v4.0.5, lineages version 2022-04-09). Derived genomes with related information were deposited into GISAID database. Samples from (CUIMC) and (WCMC) campuses were sequenced using the Oxford Nanopore (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, UK) Midnight protocol targeting 1200bp tiled amplicons across the length of the genome, as previously described (15). Samples were sequenced on an Oxford Nanopore GridION using R9.4.1 flow cells, with negative controls included on each run. Variant calling and consensus genome generation was performed using the Oxford Nextflow ARTIC pipeline. Viral lineage classification, identification of mutations, and phylogenetic analyses were performed using Pangolin v4.0.5 and Nextclade v1.11.0. Genomic data from CUIMC is routinely uploaded to GISAID and to GenBank (under NCBI BioProject PRJNA751551). At Yale, sequencing was performed as previously described, but Pangolin v4.0.5 was used (16). All other SARS-CoV-2 WGS and lineage assignment was performed as previously described (17-19).

Data Analysis

All charts and analyses were generated and performed with GraphPad Prism v8.2.1. Non-linear regression of BA.2.12.1 and non-BA.2.12.1 was performed and best fit straight lines using the least squares method and y-intercepts were compared for differences. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to determine the performance characteristics of different dEO cut-off values was generated by classifying samples with lineage information available as either “BA.2.12.1” or “Other”. Positive and negative predictive values of pOGTF for the detection of BA.2.12.1 were calculated using samples with lineage information classified as either “BA.2.12.1” or “Other” where pOGTF was considered a dEO of ≥2 with an E-gene CT value ≤30.

Data availability

All SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes have been deposited in GISAID and/or NCBI Genbank with accession numbers or viral names listed in Table S1.

Results

Difference in CT values for the E gene target compared to the ORF1ab gene target (dEO) from March 6, 2022 to April 16, 2022 were plotted (Figure 1, Table S1). Using an E gene CT value cutoff of ≤30 thermocycles to avoid non-specific variation between values near the limit of detection of the assay, an outlier group with abnormal difference between the two CT values was identified. These data indicate delayed detection of the ORF1ab target as compared to the E gene target. In total, 428 samples, run on either the classic or combo SARS-CoV-2 assay, with pOGTF were detected during the study period.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1 Plot of ORF1ab and E-gene CT values generated using the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 or cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays.

ORF1ab and E loci CT values from the indicated institutions for all positive results from March 6, 2022 to April 16, 2022. Vertical line indicates an E-gene CT value of 30 that was used as a cut-off for subsequent analyses. Samples with only a single gene detected were not included and are not shown. A total of 3,471 unique samples are included. Abbreviations: Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC), Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP), Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK), Weill-Cornell Medical Center (WCMC), Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL), and Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH).

Following institution-specific workflows for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance sequencing, a subset of samples from the study period underwent WGS and lineage determination, including 71 samples showing pOGTF (Table S1). Overwhelmingly, pOGTF samples were determined to be BA.2.12.1 (70/71), with the first WGS-confirmed detection of BA.2.12.1 among study participants occurring in the first week of March in the YNHH cohort and remaining study sites also confirming BA.2.12.1 from pOGTF specimens in late-March. The emergence of samples with pOGTF coincided with increases in BA.2.12.1, and preliminary evidence suggested that pOGTF may be a marker for BA.2.12.1. To explore this ORF1ab and E gene CT values were plotted for samples confirmed as BA.2.12.1 or another lineage by sequencing. BA.2.12.1 samples also clustered as dEO outliers (Figure 2). Best-fit straight lines demonstrated these to be different populations with significantly different y-intercepts (p < 0.0001). Further analysis of sequencing data demonstrated that BA.2.12.1, a sub-lineage of BA.2, contains five characteristic mutations of interest to this study, compared to the parent strain. These include two missense mutations altering amino acids in the spike gene, g.22917 T>G (S:L452Q) and g.23673 C>T (S:S704L), and three synonymous mutations g.11674 C>T (ORF1ab), g.15009 T>C (ORF1ab), and g.21721 C>T (S). Likely, one of the two ORF1ab synonymous mutations causes reduced efficiency of amplification and/or detection of the target in the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2 Plot of ORF1ab and E-gene CT values generated using the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 or cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays for samples with lineage results.

ORF1ab and E loci CT values from all institutions for samples with lineage results from March 6, 2022 to April 16, 2022 are shown. All lineages other than BA.2.12.1 were consolidated into a single category. A total of 72 BA.2.12.1 and 766 other lineage samples were included. Linear regression was performed, and best fit curves for BA.2.12.1 and all other lineages were had significantly different y-intercepts (p < 0.0001). Only samples with E-gene CT values ≤30 were used for regression analysis.

We used the subset of samples with lineage information to generate an ROC curve to determine the performance characteristics of different cut-off values for dEO (Figure 3). At a dEO cut-off of 2.1, the sensitivity of was 97.2% while the specificity was 99.9% generated during the ROC analysis. After review of the primary data, there was no difference in performance using a cutoff of 2.0 vs. 2.1, thus dEO ≥ 2.0 was selected for simplicity of use in identifying samples with pOGTF (Table 1). When this criterion was applied to our population of samples with lineage information with E gene CT values ≤30 the positive and negative predictive values were 98.6% and 99.7%, respectively. Using the thresholds if E gene CT values ≤30 and dEO ≥2 to define pOGTF, we reanalyzed our initial cobas SARS-CoV-2 results, finding that the pOGTF group showed a mean dEO of 4.02 (95% CI 3.95 to 4.09) cycles as compared to -0.13 (95% CI - 0.14 to -0.11) cycles in the non-pOGTF group (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Contingency table and performance analysis using dEO threshold ≥2 for samples with E-gene CT ≤30 as a marker of BA.2.12.1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Descriptive stats for entire data set for samples with E gene CT ≤30 and dEO ≥2 (ie. pOGTF).

Figure 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 3 ROC curve analysis for dEO as a marker for BA.2.12.1.

For samples with available sequencing data, dEO was calculated, and samples were classified as “BA.2.12.1” or “Not BA.2.12.1.” A total of 72 BA.2.12.1 and 766 other lineage samples were included. ROC analysis was performed in GraphPad Prism and full ROC Curve (A) and a detailed view (B) are shown. Only samples with E-gene CT values ≤30 were used.

To better understand the relationship between pOGTF, the emergence of BA.2.12.1, and overall test positivity, we reviewed publicly available GISAID data to identify the number of all sequences and BA.2.12.1 sequences uploaded from North America for the same time period as our study. Over a five-week period, the number of sequences submitted was stable, but the proportion of BA.2.12.1 samples increased over time to approximately 13% of all sequences (Figure 4A). Our total testing data using the pOGTF threshold also revealed, similar rise in samples demonstrating pOGTF, with the proportion of positive samples with pOGTF steadily increasing over the study period, peaking in the final week of the study (April 10-16) with a range from 11.1% to 39.8 % among the seven study sites (Figure 4B). This rise is continuing. Importantly, the rise in pOGTF at our institutions has also corresponded to an increase in overall test positivity, consistent with concerns of increased transmissibility of the BA.2.12.1 variant.

Figure 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 4 Increasing BA.2.12.1 prevalence relates to pOGTF and percent positivity.

(A) All North American samples submitted to GISAID from the indicated period of time were extracted on 4/21/22, and the percentage of all sequences classified as BA.2.12.1 was calculated. (B) Percent positivity and percent pOGTF for all samples tested by cobas® SARS-CoV-2 or cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays at participating institutions for the indicated weeks. For CCF, percent positive data included additional samples tested by an alternative platform. All samples regardless of E-gene CT value were included. Percent pOGTF was calculated for all samples with E gene CT values ≤30 with or without a dEO ≥2 cycles.

Discussion

The role of CT values in clinical decision-making has been hotly debated throughout the pandemic; however, studies have demonstrated their association with clinical outcomes and thus their potential to inform clinical and logistic decisions (20-30). Nevertheless, multiple sources of pre-analytic and analytic variability, along with the qualitative nature of SARS-CoV-2 assays, can complicate interpretation (31-33). However, with enough data points a normal dispersion between CT values of multi-target assays can be constructed and monitored for evidence of abnormal differences in CT values between two targets (Figure 1) (6, 7). Abnormal divergence between CT values may indicate polymorphisms that impact detection of individual target genes, particularly when the values are well above the limit of detection (6-10). Outliers showing abnormally large differences between targets or delayed detection of a given target relative to other targets may indicate mutations impacting the primer/probe binding sites and warrant further characterization by WGS.

Tracking unique assay performance characteristics as a marker of a specific variant has demonstrated value through more rapid assessment than WGS, as has been readily apparent with SGTF in the Alpha and Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we describe the use of pOGTF on the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 and cobas® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B assays to rapidly identify the emergence of BA.2.12.1. pOGTF is a highly reliable proxy for BA.2.12.1, particularly for samples with CT values ≤30 thermocycles. This phenomenon is useful for rapid recognition, particularly for laboratories that lack sequencing capabilities. The CDC Nowcast variant proportion projection for the week ending 4/16/22 estimates BA.2.12.1 at 19.0% (13.4-26.0%) nationally, with higher proportions in the Northeast of the US (34). Our data are congruent with these projections, showing highest concentration in the US Northeast with spread into the US Midwest through mid-April, and we demonstrate that pOGTF can be used for real-time BA.2.12.1 tracking. Notably, estimates of the BA.2.12.1 variant fraction using pOGTF are higher than WGS-derived projections. This increased fraction may indicate that BA.2.12.1 is spreading more quickly than has been estimated.

The emergence of BA.2.12.1 at our study sites has coincided with increased positivity rates (Figure 4), suggesting this variant is at least partially responsible for increased community transmission. Increased transmissibility is likely attributable in part to the spike L452Q mutation present in BA.2.12.1, which is not found in the parent strain but was present in Lambda (C.37). A similar mutation, L452R was observed with Delta (B.1.617.2). L452Q has been implicated as an important driver of human transmission, enhancing infectivity and receptor binding while reducing vaccine-derived immunity (35).

For routine diagnostic laboratories, identifying mutations responsible for altering commercial assay performance is hindered by a lack of public information regarding the primer/probe target regions of commercially available FDA EUA assays. As stated during the July 26, 2021 CDC Clinical Laboratory COVID-19 Response Call, “…ideally genomic regions targeted by IVDs would be made publicly available by manufacturers, so prospective investigation of polymorphisms occurring within target regions could be identified” (36). The authors support disclosure of primer/probe target regions for FDA EUA assays to facilitate monitoring for mutations that could impact diagnostic assay performance. As in the case of pOGTF with BA.2.12.1, two putative mutations (g.11674 C>T and g.15009 T>C) have been identified, but the responsible mutation impacting the assay performance has not yet been confirmed. If the former, this supports Wang et al.’s conclusion that cytidines in assay target regions are particularly susceptible to mutations for SARS-CoV-2 (37). Additional challenges for sentinel laboratories in identifying assay-impacting mutations are the frequency of the observation and quantity of testing. Sentinel laboratories may struggle to identify an emerging pattern when restricted to local data. It may therefore be easier to identify target failure using larger data sets or by retrospectively retesting samples with mutations identified by WGS, if the genomic regions targeted by the NAAT are publicly available.

Currently, mutations impacting primer/probe binding are self-monitored by manufacturers, which may pose a conflict of interest (38). Monitoring therefore relies on publicly generated and openly shared genomic data (GISAID and Genbank). The lag in availability of WGS data may delay detection of new variants that impact assay performance by weeks. Additionally, if a variant emerges in a locale with low sequencing surveillance, recognition may be further delayed. As demonstrated herein, monitoring of assay performance through real-time evaluation of CT values has utility in SARS-CoV-2 variant surveillance, and could inform clinical and logistical decision making. Widespread real-time uploading of SARS-CoV-2 NAAT CT values to an FDA or manufacturer-sponsored database, similar to the data curation available for BioFire® Syndromic Trends Epidemiology Tool, could permit rapid detection, and thus response, to emerging variants (39).

This study has some limitations. Not all SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed on the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 assays as multiple NAAT platforms are used at each participating site, and operational workflow may have unintentionally introduced biases (e.g., directing samples from certain patient populations or need for rapid result to particular platforms) to the study set. All analyses were performed on a per-sample and not a per-subject basis, and a single subject’s samples could have been included multiple times within the data set. However, the impact of this possibility is diminished by the multi-center nature of this study and large data. While pOGTF is currently specific to BA.2.12.1, the specificity, sensitivity, and predictive values may change over time as SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve and the lineages prevalent in the population changes. Although pOGTF can be a rapid and useful tool for monitoring BA.2.12.1, WGS remains important in confirming the lineage, assessing for additional mutations, and detecting new variants that decrease the specificity of the association of pOGTF with BA.2.12.1.

Data Availability

All SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes have been deposited in GISAID and/or NCBI Genbank with accession numbers or viral names listed in Table S1. dEO outlier model code and sample reproducible report are available at: https://github.com/bjklab/SARS-CoV-2_Ct_report.

Acknowledgements

All authors would like to acknowledge the ASM ClinMicroNet Listserv for providing a platform for communication and collaboration between clinical microbiology laboratory directors, which allowed this group of authors to connect on this shared observation. KGR, BJK, FB, AM acknowledge funding provided by a contract award from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC BAA 200-2021-10986 and 75D30121C11102/000HCVL1-2021-55232), philanthropic donations to the Penn Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, and in part by NIH grant R61/33-HL137063 and AI140442 -supplement for SARS-CoV-2. Additional assistance was provided by the Penn Center for AIDS Research (P30-AI045008) and in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015. BJK is also supported by NIH K23 AI121485. They also acknowledge assistance with data collection and analysis by Daniel Danoski, Michael Kosenski, Amee Aghera, Irina Petlakh and the Penn Medicine Data Analytics Center. DAG, GJB, FW, MKA, ACU acknowledge in part NIH funding (U01 DA053949) and the Columbia University Biobank team. DDR and TZ acknowledge Ashley Figula who first recognized the pOGTF phenomenon, which prompted this study; and we thank the Ohio Department of Health for its support of Cleveland Clinic’s SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance. TM, KJ, NEB acknowledge funding in part through the National Institute of Heath/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support (Grant P30 CA008748) and Philanthropic Funds from the Burns Family. NDG acknowledges funding provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Broad Agency Announcement (75D30120C09570). LFW and RMR acknowledge Kathy Fauntleroy and Selma Salter from New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, and Melissa Cushing from Weill Cornell Medicine. We gratefully acknowledge both the originating and submitting laboratories for the sequence data in GISAID EpiCoV on which the SARS-CoV-2 variant prevalence data are partially based.

The Yale SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance Initiative consists of Kendall Billig, Mallery Breban, Chantal Vogels, Kien Pham, Nicholas Chen, Chrispin Chaguza, Irina Tikhonova, Christopher Castaldi, Shrikant Mane, Bony De Kumar, David Ferguson, Nicholas Kerantzas, Marie Landry, Wade Schulz.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Rhoads DD, Plunkett D, Nakitandwe J, Dempsey A, Tu ZJ, Procop GW, Bosler D, Rubin BP, Loeffelholz MJ, Brock JE. 2021. Endemic SARS-CoV-2 Polymorphisms Can Cause a Higher Diagnostic Target Failure Rate than Estimated by Aggregate Global Sequencing Data. J Clin Microbiol 59:e0091321.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 12-13-2021 2021. SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-classifications.html. Accessed April 18.
  3. 3.↵
    Public Health England. 2020. Investigation of novel SARS-CoV-2 variant: Variant of Concern 202012/01. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/959361/Technical_Briefing_VOC202012-2_Briefing_2.pdf. Accessed April 20.
  4. 4.↵
    UK Health Security Agency. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. Variant of concern: Omicron, VOC21NOV-01 (B.1.1.529): Technical briefing 30. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1038404/Technical_Briefing_30.pdf. Accessed April 18.
  5. 5.↵
    UK Health Security Agency. 2022. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England: Technical briefing 38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1060337/Technical-Briefing-38-11March2022.pdf. Accessed April 20.
  6. 6.↵
    Tahan S, Parikh BA, Droit L, Wallace MA, Burnham CD, Wang D. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 E Gene Variant Alters Analytical Sensitivity Characteristics of Viral Detection Using a Commercial Reverse Transcription-PCR Assay. J Clin Microbiol 59:e0007521.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Vanaerschot M, Mann SA, Webber JT, Kamm J, Bell SM, Bell J, Hong SN, Nguyen MP, Chan LY, Bhatt KD, Tan M, Detweiler AM, Espinosa A, Wu W, Batson J, Dynerman D, Wadford DA, Puschnik AS, Neff N, Ahyong V, Miller S, Ayscue P, Tato CM, Paul S, Kistler AL, DeRisi JL, Crawford ED. 2020. Identification of a Polymorphism in the N Gene of SARS-CoV-2 That Adversely Impacts Detection by Reverse Transcription-PCR. J Clin Microbiol 59.
  8. 8.
    Artesi M, Bontems S, Gobbels P, Franckh M, Maes P, Boreux R, Meex C, Melin P, Hayette MP, Bours V, Durkin K. 2020. A Recurrent Mutation at Position 26340 of SARS-CoV-2 Is Associated with Failure of the E Gene Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR Utilized in a Commercial Dual-Target Diagnostic Assay. J Clin Microbiol 58.
  9. 9.
    Ziegler K, Steininger P, Ziegler R, Steinmann J, Korn K, Ensser A. 2020. SARS-CoV-2 samples may escape detection because of a single point mutation in the N gene. Euro Surveill 25.
  10. 10.↵
    Hasan MR, Sundararaju S, Manickam C, Mirza F, Al-Hail H, Lorenz S, Tang P. 2021. A Novel Point Mutation in the N Gene of SARS-CoV-2 May Affect the Detection of the Virus by Reverse Transcription-Quantitative PCR. J Clin Microbiol 59.
  11. 11.↵
    NYSDOH. 2022. New York State Department of Health Announces Emergence of Recently Identified, Highly Contagious Omicron Subvariants in New York and Urges Continued Vigilance Against COVID-19. https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2022/2022-04-13_covid-19.htm. Accessed April 18.
  12. 12.↵
    Babady NE, McMillen T, Jani K, Viale A, Robilotti EV, Aslam A, Diver M, Sokoli D, Mason G, Shah MK, Korenstein D, Kamboj M. 2021. Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Real-Time RT-PCR Tests on Oral Rinses and Saliva Samples. J Mol Diagn 23:3–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    Carpenter B GA, Hoffman MD, Lee D, Goodrich B, Betancourt M, Brubaker M, Guo J, Li P, Riddell A. 2017. Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. Journal of Statistical Software 76:1–32.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Burkner P-C. 2017. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80:1–28.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Annavajhala MK, Mohri H, Wang P, Nair M, Zucker JE, Sheng Z, Gomez-Simmonds A, Kelley AL, Tagliavia M, Huang Y, Bedford T, Ho DD, Uhlemann AC. 2021. Emergence and expansion of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.526 after identification in New York. Nature 597:703–708.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Chaguza C, Coppi A, Earnest R, Ferguson D, Kerantzas N, Warner F, Young HP, Breban MI, Billig K, Koch RT, Pham K, Kalinich CC, Ott IM, Fauver JR, Hahn AM, Tikhonova IR, Castaldi C, De Kumar B, Pettker CM, Warren JL, Weinberger DM, Landry ML, Peaper DR, Schulz W, Vogels CBF, Grubaugh ND. 2022. Rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is associated with an infection advantage over Delta in vaccinated persons. Med (N Y) doi:10.1016/j.medj.2022.03.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Everett J, Hokama P, Roche AM, Reddy S, Hwang Y, Kessler L, Glascock A, Li Y, Whelan JN, Weiss SR, Sherrill-Mix S, McCormick K, Whiteside SA, Graham-Wooten J, Khatib LA, Fitzgerald AS, Collman RG, Bushman F. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Variation in Space and Time in Hospitalized Patients in Philadelphia. mBio 12.
  18. 18.
    Aslam A, Singh J, Robilotti E, Chow K, Bist T, Reidy-Lagunes D, Shah M, Korenstein D, Babady NE, Kamboj M. 2021. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Surveillance and Exposure in the Perioperative Setting With Universal Testing and Personal Protective Equipment Policies. Clin Infect Dis 73:e3013–e3018.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Chow K, Aslam A, McClure T, Singh J, Burns J, McMillen T, Jani K, Lucca A, Bubb T, Robilotti EV, Babady NE, Kamboj M. 2021. Risk of Healthcare-Associated Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Hospitalized Cancer Patients. Clin Infect Dis doi:10.1093/cid/ciab670.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Binnicker MJ. 2020. Can the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Polymerase Chain Reaction Cycle Threshold Value and Time From Symptom Onset to Testing Predict Infectivity? Clin Infect Dis 71:2667–2668.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.
    Binnicker MJ. 2021. Can Testing Predict SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity? The Potential for Certain Methods To Be Surrogates for Replication-Competent Virus. J Clin Microbiol 59:e0046921.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    Tom MR, Mina MJ. 2020. To Interpret the SARS-CoV-2 Test, Consider the Cycle Threshold Value. Clin Infect Dis 71:2252–2254.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    Bullard J, Dust K, Funk D, Strong JE, Alexander D, Garnett L, Boodman C, Bello A, Hedley A, Schiffman Z, Doan K, Bastien N, Li Y, Van Caeseele PG, Poliquin G. 2020. Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples. Clin Infect Dis 71:2663–2666.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Rhoads DD, Pinsky BA. 2021. The Truth about SARS-CoV-2 Cycle Threshold Values Is Rarely Pure and Never Simple. Clin Chem 68:16–18.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.
    Magleby R, Westblade LF, Trzebucki A, Simon MS, Rajan M, Park J, Goyal P, Safford MM, Satlin MJ. 2021. Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viral Load on Risk of Intubation and Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis 73:e4197–e4205.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.
    Westblade LF, Brar G, Pinheiro LC, Paidoussis D, Rajan M, Martin P, Goyal P, Sepulveda JL, Zhang L, George G, Liu D, Whittier S, Plate M, Small CB, Rand JH, Cushing MM, Walsh TJ, Cooke J, Safford MM, Loda M, Satlin MJ. 2020. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load Predicts Mortality in Patients with and without Cancer Who Are Hospitalized with COVID-19. Cancer Cell 38:661–671 e2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Westblade LF, Magleby R, Trzebucki A, Simon MS, Rajan M, Park J, Goyal P, Safford MM, Satlin MJ. 2021. Reply to Rhoads, et al. Clin Infect Dis 72:e687.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.
    Rajyalakshmi B, Samavedam S, Reddy PR, Aluru N. 2021. Prognostic Value of “Cycle Threshold” in Confirmed COVID-19 Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 25:322–326.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.
    Rao SN, Manissero D, Steele VR, Pareja J. 2020. A Systematic Review of the Clinical Utility of Cycle Threshold Values in the Context of COVID-19. Infect Dis Ther 9:573–586.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Miller EH, Zucker J, Castor D, Annavajhala MK, Sepulveda JL, Green DA, Whittier S, Scherer M, Medrano N, Sobieszczyk ME, Yin MT, Kuhn L, Uhlemann AC. 2021. Pretest Symptom Duration and Cycle Threshold Values for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Predict Coronavirus Disease 2019 Mortality. Open Forum Infect Dis 8:ofab003.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Rhoads D, Peaper DR, She RC, Nolte FS, Wojewoda CM, Anderson NW, Pritt BS. 2021. College of American Pathologists (CAP) Microbiology Committee Perspective: Caution Must Be Used in Interpreting the Cycle Threshold (Ct) Value. Clin Infect Dis 72:e685–e686.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.
    Infectious Diseases Society of America and Association for Molecular Pathology. 2021. IDSA and AMP joint statement on the use of SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for clinical decision-making. https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/idsa-amp-statement.pdf. Accessed April 19.
  33. 33.↵
    American Association for Clinical Chemistry. 2021. AACC Recommendation for Reporting SARS-CoV-2 Cycle Threshold (CT) Values | AACC.org, on AACC. https://www.aacc.org/science-and-research/covid-19-resources/statements-on-covid-19-testing/aacc-recommendation-for-reporting-sars-cov-2-cycle-threshold-ct-values. Accessed April 19.
  34. 34.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020-03-28 2020. COVID Data Tracker. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker. Accessed April 20.
  35. 35.↵
    Kimura I, Kosugi Y, Wu J, Zahradnik J, Yamasoba D, Butlertanaka EP, Tanaka YL, Uriu K, Liu Y, Morizako N, Shirakawa K, Kazuma Y, Nomura R, Horisawa Y, Tokunaga K, Ueno T, Takaori-Kondo A, Schreiber G, Arase H, Genotype to Phenotype Japan C, Motozono C, Saito A, Nakagawa S, Sato K. 2022. The SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits enhanced infectivity and immune resistance. Cell Rep 38:110218.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Rhoads D. Genomic changes causing SARS-CoV-2 detection partial failure, p. In (ed),
  37. 37.↵
    Wang R, Hozumi Y, Yin C, Wei GW. 2020. Mutations on COVID-19 diagnostic targets. Genomics 112:5204–5213.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    United States Food and Drug Administration, Drug. 2021. Establishing additional Conditions of Authorization for the EUAs of Certain Molecular, Antigen and Serology IVDs related to viral mutations. https://www.fda.gov/media/152406/download. Accessed April 21.
  39. 39.↵
    Meyers L, Ginocchio CC, Faucett AN, Nolte FS, Gesteland PH, Leber A, Janowiak D, Donovan V, Dien Bard J, Spitzer S, Stellrecht KA, Salimnia H, Selvarangan R, Juretschko S, Daly JA, Wallentine JC, Lindsey K, Moore F, Reed SL, Aguero-Rosenfeld M, Fey PD, Storch GA, Melnick SJ, Robinson CC, Meredith JF, Cook CV, Nelson RK, Jones JD, Scarpino SV, Althouse BM, Ririe KM, Malin BA, Poritz MA. 2018. Automated Real-Time Collection of Pathogen-Specific Diagnostic Data: Syndromic Infectious Disease Epidemiology. JMIR Public Health Surveill 4:e59.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 28, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Partial ORF1ab Gene Target Failure with Omicron BA.2.12.1
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Partial ORF1ab Gene Target Failure with Omicron BA.2.12.1
Kyle G. Rodino, David R. Peaper, Brendan J. Kelly, Frederic Bushman, Andrew Marques, Hriju Adhikari, Zheng Jin Tu, Rebecca Marrero Rolon, Lars F. Westblade, Daniel A. Green, Gregory J. Berry, Fann Wu, Medini K. Annavajhala, Anne-Catrin Uhlemann, Bijal A. Parikh, Tracy McMillen, Krupa Jani, N. Esther Babady, Anne M. Hahn, Robert T. Koch, Nathan D. Grubaugh, Yale SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance Initiative, Daniel D. Rhoads
medRxiv 2022.04.25.22274187; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.25.22274187
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Partial ORF1ab Gene Target Failure with Omicron BA.2.12.1
Kyle G. Rodino, David R. Peaper, Brendan J. Kelly, Frederic Bushman, Andrew Marques, Hriju Adhikari, Zheng Jin Tu, Rebecca Marrero Rolon, Lars F. Westblade, Daniel A. Green, Gregory J. Berry, Fann Wu, Medini K. Annavajhala, Anne-Catrin Uhlemann, Bijal A. Parikh, Tracy McMillen, Krupa Jani, N. Esther Babady, Anne M. Hahn, Robert T. Koch, Nathan D. Grubaugh, Yale SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance Initiative, Daniel D. Rhoads
medRxiv 2022.04.25.22274187; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.25.22274187

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (270)
  • Allergy and Immunology (552)
  • Anesthesia (135)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1757)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
  • Dermatology (173)
  • Emergency Medicine (312)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (659)
  • Epidemiology (10799)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (590)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2949)
  • Geriatric Medicine (287)
  • Health Economics (534)
  • Health Informatics (1928)
  • Health Policy (836)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (745)
  • Hematology (292)
  • HIV/AIDS (630)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12517)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (691)
  • Medical Education (299)
  • Medical Ethics (86)
  • Nephrology (324)
  • Neurology (2799)
  • Nursing (151)
  • Nutrition (433)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (559)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (597)
  • Oncology (1466)
  • Ophthalmology (444)
  • Orthopedics (172)
  • Otolaryngology (257)
  • Pain Medicine (190)
  • Palliative Medicine (56)
  • Pathology (381)
  • Pediatrics (866)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (366)
  • Primary Care Research (337)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2640)
  • Public and Global Health (5366)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1013)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (595)
  • Respiratory Medicine (726)
  • Rheumatology (330)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (289)
  • Sports Medicine (279)
  • Surgery (327)
  • Toxicology (47)
  • Transplantation (150)
  • Urology (125)