ANALYSIS OF FOUR DIFFERENT TRANSPORT AND PRESERVATION MEDIUM KITS FOR SARS-COV-2 DIAGNOSIS FROM NASOPHARYNGEAL SWAB BY REAL-TIME PCR: ADAPTING TO THE CONSTANTLY INCREASING DEMAND OF SAMPLING PROCESSING AND STOCK-OUTS DURING THE PANDEMIC

The high demand for supplies during the COVID19-pandemic has generated several stock-out of material and essential reagents needed to meet the current high demand for diagnosis in the worldwide population. In this way, there is limited information regarding the performance of different virus transport medium (VTM) for nasopharyngeal swab sampling (NPS) aimed for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We compared the RT-qPCR amplification profile of four different commercial transport medium kits, including DNA/RNA Shield, NAT, VTM, and Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) transport medium, for NPSs samples from Central Metropolitan Health Service, Santiago, Chile. The RT-qPCR showed a slight lower RNase P Cq value of the samples preserved and transported in DNA/RNA Shield compared to NAT medium. By contrast, a marked increase in the RNase P Cq value was registered in the samples transported with VTM compared to DNA/RNA Shield medium. For PBS-preserved NPS, the performance of two strategies were assessed due to the potential presence of any remaining active virus in the sample: (1) thermal inactivation; and (2) thermal inactivation treatment followed by RNA extraction. The heat inactivation showed a significantly lower Cq value for RNase P and viral ORF1ab Cq compared to the followed by RNA extraction. This study indicates that new medium alternatives could be used if supplies run out to diagnose COVID19


INTRODUCTION 43
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has exposed the diagnostic 44 research teams to several challenges in the process of his detection to control the COVID 19 45 pandemic. The current massive worldwide molecular method to detect SARS-CoV-2 genome in any 46 sample is by RT-qPCR, a molecular diagnostic technique that identifies the genetic material of the 47 virus from the upper respiratory tract, including oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal or saliva samples [1-48 3]. Due to the large number of PCR testing, most labs had to deal with supply chain disruption, which 49 became a limitation for COVID-19 testing due to lack of reagents [4]. Therefore, scientists are 50 permanently exposed to frequent changes in viral transport medium (VTM), swabs, reagents for RNA 51 extraction, diagnostic PCR kits for virus detection, among others. One of the critical steps for virus 52 detection is the pre-analytical stage that involves collection, preserving, and transporting the sample 53 to the clinical laboratory [5,6]. In terms of sampling collection, the Centers for Disease Control and 54 Prevention (CDC) of the United States suggested the use of sterile synthetic fiber swabs with a plastic 55 rod to avoid deterioration and, consequently, a possible compromise for the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. 56 In addition, CDC also indicates that the sample should be transported in a suitable VTM for an 57 efficient diagnosis of the COVID-19 [7]. On the other hand, The Food and Drug Administration 58 (FDA) recommended the use of alternative VTM to counteract the constantly increasing demand in 59 the transport and preservation of the viral sample [8]. Therefore, a wide spectrum of sampling, 60 preservation and transport kits with different VTMs are currently produced to make up the stock-out 61 in the pre-analytical stage. Despite the advantage that this apparently implies, it is necessary to 62 determine the capacity of the different kits to preserve reproducibility in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. 63 Thus, the use of different preservation and transport kits must ensure the correct diagnostic for 64 favoring the adequate applications of public health measures for controlling the pandemic. 65 The chemical composition of the transport medium can affect, for example, the integrity of the viral 66 RNA. This has as repercussion a lower detection sensitivity on the PCR assay, thus bringing as 67 consequence the report of samples with a false negative diagnostic [9,10]. Severe reports have studied 68 VTM of a repertoire of kits in presence and absence of viral inactivators [11][12][13][14]From the lab 69 technician safety perspective, the absence of viral inactivators on the VTM composition generates, as 70 consequence, a prior processing step for viral inactivation. This process is made routinely by heat, for 71 its safety manipulation and processing in type 2 biosafety laboratories [15]. In this study, we evaluated 72 the performance of four commercial kits aimed for collection, preservation, and transport of 73 nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs), for detection and diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. 74 The solutions included in the analysis were based on DNA/RNA Shield, NAT medium (NAT), Virus 75 Transport Medium (VTM; consisting in foetal bovine serum (FBS) added to a solution of Hanks' salts 76 (HS)), and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) transport medium. These solutions were chosen because 77 they were the only available in the Central Metropolitan Health Service in Chile. We observed 78 differences in the amplification of the internal control (RNase P), probably associated to the different 79 medium and preservation characteristics. 80 currently routinely processed in our role of laboratory of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and member of 90 the patient was collected in a 1.5 ml tube and vortexed with 500 µL of lysis buffer (buffer RL: absolute 118 ethanol; 1:1) during 1 min. Then, the solution was centrifuged at 14,000 x g for 5 min at room 119 temperature. Subsequently, 700 µL of the lysate was transferred to a 96-filter plate and centrifuged 120 at 1,690 x g for 6 min. The 96-filter plate was washed twice with 400 µL of wash solution A. After 121 each wash the plate was centrifuged at 1690 x g for 4 min. Then, the plate was centrifuged at 1690 x 122 g for 10 min to any volume trace. Finally, the total RNA was eluted using 70 µL of Elution solution 123 A and centrifuged at 1690 x g for 7 min. The purified RNA was evaluated immediately by quantitative 124 reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR). 125 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review)

SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR.
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260473 doi: medRxiv preprint relative fluorescence units (RFU) data were extracted from each NPS using the Agilent AriaMx 139 software. 140 2.6 SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab gene standard curve and detection limit for diagnosis. To determine 141 the minimum detection limit for the RT-qPCR and the efficiency of amplification (E), a standard 142 curve for ORF1ab amplification was generated. The assay includes five serial dilutions (from 10 to 143 1x10 sided Student T-test was used to determine differences between two processing strategies for by RT-155 qPCR. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Hospital (Fig 1A). 171

172
The age spectrum of the patients analyzed ranged from newborns up to 105 years old. The age of the 173 patients analyzed was mainly concentrated between 20 and 59 years (47,279 samples). Of these, the 174 range between 30-39 years was the most analyzed age-interval group, reaching 12,915 patients. Then, 175 it is followed by the intervals 50-59 years (11,876 samples), 20-29 years (11,843 samples), and 40-176 49 years (10,645 samples) (Fig 1B). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260473 doi: medRxiv preprint observed in May (4,525), registering the peak of positivity in June with 4,947 samples. A greater 183 positivity was observed for all months in females compared to males, reaching a peak of 2,692 184 samples in June ( Fig 1C). Importantly, the high positivity was not associated with the number of 185 samples analyzed. Indeed, on May 28, 936 samples were processed, of which 544 samples were 186 diagnosed as positive. In contrast, on August 6 and September 24, 932 and 904 samples were 187 processed, registering 41 and 20 positives, respectively ( Fig 1D). Taken together, these results 188 indicate that the positivity recorded in our team is related to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 189 the population and not to the total number of samples processed. samples preserved in NAT medium (18.59 ± 1.058) (Fig 2A). When comparing the relative 205 fluorescence units (RFU) of samples conserved in DNA/RNA Shield and NAT medium (5,446 ± 206 493.5 and 5,124 ± 378.8 RFU, respectively), there was no significant difference ( Fig 2B). No 207 amplification for SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab gene was observed in the four analyzed samples (Fig 2C). 1.282) (Fig 2D). Regarding the fluorescence intensity of the samples, those preserved in VTM 213 medium showed a very low mean value (2,248 ± 612.6 RFU) compared to those samples from the 214 same patients but preserved in DNA/RNA Shield medium (5,060 ± 527 RFU). (Fig 2E). No 215 amplification for SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab gene was observed in the eight analyzed samples (Fig 2F). 216 All the analyzed samples registered a Cq value into the detection limit established for RNase P 217 standard curve (Fig 2G). 218 In an extreme non-stock of preservation and transport kit for NPSs sampling, we started to receive 219 them in 3 ml conic tube containing PBS solution. These PBS-preserved NPS samples were processed 220 using two strategies: (1) thermal inactivation treatment at 56 °C for 10 minutes (for virus 221 inactivation); and (2) the same thermal inactivation treatment followed by RNA extraction using 222 Norgen kit. Then, the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was determined by RT-qPCR. Comparing the internal 223 control RNase P Cq values obtained between the different sampling processing, the thermal 224 inactivation showed a significantly lower value (21.18 ± 2.07) compared to the thermal inactivation 225 followed by RNA extraction (27.62 ± 2.205) (Fig 3A). On the contrary, the relative fluorescence units 226 for the RNase P internal control amplification showed higher RFU values (8,039 ± 955.1) for the 227 thermal-inactivated samples than the thermal-inactivated samples followed by RNA extraction (5,756 228 ± 1,313) ( Fig 3B). The same lower Cq value effect was observed for the viral ORF1ab gene detection 229 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260473 doi: medRxiv preprint in the thermal inactivated samples (25.73 ± 5.362) compared to the heat-treated and RNA extracted 230 samples (30.27 ± 2.751) (Fig 3C). In the case of the viral ORF1ab gene, there are no significant 231 differences between both sampling processing ( Fig 3D). Importantly, with the thermal inactivation 232 were diagnosed twenty-five SARS-CoV-2 positive samples; however, of them only nineteen samples 233 were also diagnosed as SARS-CoV-2 positive (Fig 3E). All the SARS-CoV-2 positive-diagnosed 234 samples fall into the range of detection for ORF1ab gene amplification (Fig 3F)  for supplies during the COVID19-pandemic has generated several stock breaks of material and 249 essential reagents. As consequence, currently there is a wide repertoire of kits and for preserving and 250 transporting the nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs) for the control of the pandemic. However, the 251 variation in the detection signal and Cq value observed in our study strongly suggests that the 252 transport and preservation medium should be considered for the detection of SARS- better stability compared to PBS solution after seven days of preservation, even after storage at -80ºC.

275
On the other hand, the viral transport medium (VTM) contains a solution of Hank's salts 276 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. and NAT media) that, in fact, do not require the maintaining of a cold chain temperature range from 305 the sampling collection until processing. Furthermore, in the PBS-based transport kits there is a 306 possibility the potential presence of any remaining still active viral particle; accordingly, prior 307 inactivation is imperative for its safe handling in laboratory conditions with a class 2 safety level. The 308 handling of active SARS-CoV-2 samples of respiratory viruses is recommended under strict protocols 309 of type 3 biological safety laboratories [38,39]. Therefore, in our study the PBS-preserved samples 310 were necessarily thermal inactivated as described in methodology section. The thermal-treated and 311 RNA extracted samples showed a higher Cq value for the internal control amplification of RNase P, 312 suggesting the process could affect the RNA integrity. In this way, the information about the RFU 313 value is essential for the diagnosis, because samples with a low RFU are indicative of problems 314 associated to sample degradation. Accordingly, in our results a lower RFU was also registered in the 315 PBS-transported samples treated with thermal inactivation and subsequent RNA extraction. 316 Undoubtedly, this fact could even compromise the diagnostic result. Indeed, a lower number of PBS-317 transported samples diagnosed as positives were identified compared to those samples that were just 318 heat-treated. Thus, the thermal inactivation accompanied by an RNA extraction step compromise the 319 SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in NPS samples transported in PBS solution, increasing the chance for 320 reporting false negatives diagnosis. Importantly, the thermal inactivation single-step treatment allows 321 to obtain better results in less time-processing and lower cost associated with less use of consumables 322 for diagnostics. 323 This study expands the knowledge about the performance of NPS transport solutions in pandemic 324 circumstances and points out that the kits available on the market for collection, maintaining, and 325 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260473 doi: medRxiv preprint CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260473 doi: medRxiv preprint CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 15, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260473 doi: medRxiv preprint