Summary
We report the results of a review of the evidence from studies comparing SARS-CoV-2 culture with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR), as viral culture represents the best indicator of current infection and infectiousness of the isolate.
We identified fourteen studies succeeding in culturing or observing tissue invasion by SARS-CoV in sputum, naso or oropharyngeal, urine, stool and environmental samples from patients diagnosed with Covid-19.
The data are suggestive of a relation between the time from collection of a specimen to test, copy threshold, and symptom severity, but the quality of the studies was moderate with lack of standardised reporting and lack of testing of PCR against viral culture or infectivity in animals. This limits our current ability to quantify the relationship between viral load, cycle threshold and viable virus detection and ultimately the usefulness of PCR use for assessing infectiousness of patients.
Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patients’ factors such as date of onset of symptoms and copy threshold, in order to help predict infectivity.
Introduction
The ability to make decisions on the prevention and management of Covid-19 infections rests on our capacity to identify those who are infected. In the absence of predictive clinical signs or symptoms1, the most widely used means of detection is molecular testing using Reverse Transcriptase quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR)2 3.
The test amplifies genomic sequences identified in samples. As it is capable of generating results from small samples - it is very sensitive. Amplification of genomic sequence is measured in cycle thresholds (Ct). There appears to be a correlation between Ct values from respiratory samples, symptom onset to test (STT) date and positive viral culture. The lower the Ct value (as a proxy for total viral load) and the shorter the STT, the higher the infectivity potential4.
Whether probing for sequences or whole genomes5, in the diagnosis of Covid-19 a positive RT-qPCR cannot tell you whether the person is infectious or when the infection began, nor the provenance of the genetic material. Very early in the outbreak it was recognised that cycle threshold values are a quantitative measure of viral load, but correlation with clinical progress and transmissibility was not yet known6. A positive result indicates that a person has come into contact with the genomic sequence at some time in the past. However, presence of viral genome on its own is not sufficient proof of infectivity and caution is needed when evaluating the infectivity of specimens simply based on the detection of viral nucleic acids5. In addition, viral genomic material can be still be present weeks after infectious viral clearance.7 Like all tests, RT-qPCR requires validation against a gold standard. In this case isolation of a whole virion (as opposed to fragments) and proof that the isolate is capable of replicating its progeny in culture cells is the closest we are going to get to a gold standard.8 Our Open Evidence Review of transmission modalities of SARS CoV-2 identified a low number of studies which have attempted viral culture. There are objective difficulties in doing such cultures such as the requirement for a level III laboratory, time and the quality of the specimens as well as financial availability of reagents and culture media to rule out the presence of other pathogens.
As viral culture represents the best indicator of infection and infectiousness, we set out to review the evidence on viral culture compared to PCR, and report the results of those studies attempting viral culture regardless of source (specimen type) of the sample tested.
Methods
We conducted an initial search using LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and Google for Covid-19 using the terms ‘viral culture’ or ‘viral replication’ and associated synonyms. Search last updated 30th July 2020.
Results were reviewed for relevance and searches were stopped when no new relevant articles were apparent. For articles that looked particularly relevant citation matching was undertaken and relevant results were identified.
We included studies reporting attempts to culture SARS-CoV-2 and those which also estimated the infectiousness of the isolates. One reviewer extracted data for each study and a second review checked end edited the extraction. We tabulated the data and summarised data narratively by mode of sample: fecal, respiratory, environment or mixed.
Where necessary we wrote to corresponding authors of the included or background papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. We simplified the tool as the included studies were not designed as primary diagnostic accuracy studies.9This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19. Summaries of the included studies and the protocol (v1) are available at: https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/. Searches are updated every 2 weeks.
Results
We identified 114 articles of possible interest and after screening full texts included 14 (see PRISMA10 flow chart - Figure 1). The salient characteristics of each study are shown in Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies. Key: STT = symptom onset to test date
All 14 studies were case series of moderate quality (Table 2. Quality of included studies). We could not identify a protocol for any of the studies. All the included studies had been either published or were available as preprints; all had been made public in 2020. We received four responses from authors regarding clarifying information (see Acknowledgments).
Quality of included studies
Studies using fecal samples
Five studies used fecal samples which were positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR result11-15 and reported achieving viral isolation, and one laboratory study 16 found that SARS-CoV-2 infected human small intestinal organoids. A further study visually identified virions in colon tissue17
Studies using respiratory samples
Three studies on respiratory samples report achieving viral isolation. One study assessed 90 nasopharyngeal samples and cultured 26 of the samples, and positive cultures were only observed up to day eight post symptom onset; 4 another study obtained 31 cultures from 46 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples; 18 while 183 nasopharyngeal and sputum samples produced 124 cases in which a cytopathic effect was observed although the denominator of samples taken was unclear 19.
Studies using environmental samples
Two possible positive cultures were obtained from 95 environmental samples in one study that assessed the aerosol and surface transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 20.
Mixed sources
Five studies reported viral culture from mixed sources. Using 60 samples from 50 cases of Covid-19, viral culture was achieved from 12 oropharyngeal, nine nasopharyngeal and two sputum samples5. Jeong et al 11 who reported isolation live virus from a stool sample also reported that from of an unreported number of nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, saliva, sputum and stool samples, one viral culture was achieved: ferrets inoculated with these samples became infected; SARS-CoV-2 was isolated from the nasal washes of the two urine-treated ferrets and one stool-treated ferret11. An unreported number of samples from saliva, nasal swabs, urine, blood and stool collected from nine Covid-19 patients produced positive cultures and a possible specimen stool culture21. One study showed that from nine nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, stool, serum and urine samples, all nine were culturable, including two from nonhospitalised Covid-19 patients22. Yao and colleagues cultured viable viral isolates from seven sputum samples,, three stool samples and one nasopharyngeal sample of 11 patient aged 4 months to 71 years, indicating that the SARS-CoV-2 is capable of replicating in stool samples as well as sputum and the nasopharynx. 23 All samples had been taken within 5 days of symptom onset. The authors also report a relationship between viral load (copy thresholds) and cytopathic effect observed in infected culture cells 24
The relationship between RT-PCR results and viral culture of SARS-CoV-2
It is not possible due to the reporting within the studies to currently make a quantitative assessment of the association between RT-PCR results and the success rate of viral culture within these studies. These studies were not adequately sized nor performed in a sufficiently standardised manner and may be subject to reporting bias.
Discussion
This review shows that a number of studies have attempted and successfully achieved culture of SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory, using a range of respiratory, fecal or environmentally collected samples. The rate of success is difficult to assess from available studies, and additional studies that we are unaware of may have been performed with no viral culture achieved. There may be a positive relationship between lower cycle count threshold and viral culturability, but more studies with standardised methods are needed to establish the magnitude and reliability of this association.
The purpose of viral testing is to assess the relation of the micro-organism and hazard to humans, i.e. its clinical impact on the individual providing the sample for primary care and the of risk of transmission to others for public health. PCR on its own is unable to provide such answers. When interpreting the results of 3 rt-PCR it is important to take into consideration the clinical picture, the cycle threshold value and the number of days from symptom onset to test (STT) 25. Several of our included studies assessed the relationship of these variables and there appears to be a time window during which shedding is at its highest with low copy threshold and higher possibility of culturing a live virus. We propose that further work should be done on this with the aim of constructing a calibrating algorithm for PCR which are likely to detect infectious patients. PCR should be continuously calibrated against a reference culture in Vero cells in which cytopathic effect has been observed4. Confirmation of visual identification using methods such as an immunofluorescence assay may also be relevant for some virus types8
We are unsure whether SARS CoV-2 methods of cell culture have been standardised. Systems can vary depending upon the selection of the cell lines; the collection, transport, and handling of and the maintenance of viable and healthy inoculated cells26. We therefore recommend that standard methods for culture should be urgently developed. If identification of viral infectivity relies on visual inspection of cytopathogenic effect, then a reference culture of cells must also be developed to test recognition against infected cells. Viral culture may not be appropriate for routine daily results, but specialized laboratories should rely on their own ability to use viruses as controls, perform complete investigations when needed, and store representative clinical strains whenever possible26. In the absence of a culture, ferret inoculation of specimen washings and antibody titres could also be used. It may be impossible to produce a universal Cycle threshold value as this may change with circumstances (e.g. hospital, community, cluster and symptom level) and the current evidence base is thin.
We suggest the WHO produce a protocol to standardise the use and interpretation of PCR and routine use of culture or animal model to continuously calibrate PCR testing, coordinated by designated Biosafety Level III laboratory facilities with inward directional airflow27.
The results of our review are similar to those of the living review by Cevick and colleagues28. Although the inclusion criteria are narrower than ours, the authors reviewed 79 studies on the dynamics, load and shedding for SARS CoV-1, MERS and SARS CoV-2 from symptoms onset. They conclude that although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory (up to 83 days) and stool (35 days) can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived (up to a maximum of 8 days from symptoms onset). Results that are consistent with Bullard et al who found no growth in samples with a cycle threshold greater than 24 or when symptom onset was greater than 8 days. Thus, blanket detection of viral RNA cannot be used to infer infectiousness. Length of excretion is also linked to age, male gender and use of steroids and possible severity of illness. Of note, live virus excretion peaked later in SARS CoV-1 and MERS28
The limits of our review are the low number of studies of relatively poor quality with lack of standardised reporting and lack of gold testing for each country involved in the pandemic. This limits our ability to quantify the relationship between viral load, cycle threshold and viable virus detection. We plan to keep updating this review with emerging evidence.
Conclusion
The current data are suggestive of a relation between the time from collection of a specimen to test, copy threshold, and symptom severity, but the quality of the studies limits firm conclusions to be drawn. We recommend that a uniform international standard for reporting of comparative SARS-CoV-2 culture with index test studies be produced. Particular attention should be paid to the relationship between the results of testing, clinical conditions and the characteristics of the source patients, description of flow of specimens and testing methods. Defining cut off levels predictive of infectivity should be feasible and necessary for diagnosing viral respiratory infections using molecular tests29.
Data Availability
All data included in the review are from publications or preprints. All extractions sheets with direct links to the source paper are available from https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/
https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/
Funding
The reviews was partly funded by NIHR Evidence Synthesis Working Group project 380 and supported by the Maria and David Willets foundation.
Disclaimer
The article has not been peer-reviewed. The views expressed in this commentary represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the host institution, the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The views are not a substitute for professional medical advice. It will be regularly updated see the evidence explorer at https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/ for regular updates to the evidence summaries and briefs.
Data Availability
All data included in the review are from publications or preprints. All extractions sheets with direct links to the source paper are available from https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/
Authors
Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford. Disclosure statement is here
Elizabeth Spencer is Epidemiology and Evidence Synthesis Researcher at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. (Bio and disclosure statement here)
Jon Brassey is the Director of Trip Database Ltd, Lead for Knowledge Mobilisation at Public Health Wales (NHS) and an Associate Editor at the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.
Carl Heneghan is Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Director of Studies for the Evidence-Based Health Care Programme. (Full bio and disclosure statement here)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Acknowledgments
Drs Susan Amirian, Siyuan Ding, Long Rong and Sravanthi Parasato provided additional information for this brief. Dr Maryanne DeMasi helped with reference identification.
