Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection

Introduction

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed to reduce asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, including the introduction and spread of new viral variants from travelers. More than half of transmission events¹ occur from pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic persons. Early detection enables individuals to self-isolate sooner, reducing transmission within households and local communities, and to vulnerable populations, including individuals hospitalized for non-COVID-19 illnesses and individuals at high risk for severe disease due to multiple medical comorbidities (e.g., residents of skilled nursing or long-term-care facilities or memory-care facilities). Low-sensitivity nasal-swab tests are commonly used for SARS-CoV-2 detection and symptomatic testing.² As new variants-of-concern emerge, e.g. the Delta variant with increased transmissibility,^3–5 high viral loads,^4,6 and outbreaks with large numbers of breakthrough infections,⁷ it is clear that testing strategies (analytical sensitivity and sample type) need to be adjusted to diagnose infections earlier.

Although national vaccination efforts are reducing severe COVID-19 outcomes in the U.S., a sizable portion of the world’s population is likely to remain unvaccinated due to limited vaccine availability, medical ineligibility (in the U.S., children under 12 years of age are not yet eligible), or personal preference. Thus, testing remains an important tool for preventing outbreaks among children in schools and daycare facilities (where children under age 2 cannot wear masks), which may spread to the community and increase rates of infection among high-risk and unvaccinated individuals. Tests that detect early infections are also important to prevent viral transmission in congregate settings with high-risk or unvaccinated populations, such as hospitals, college dormitories, homeless shelters, correctional facilities, summer camps for children, elementary schools, and long-term care facilities.

Beyond outbreak prevention and control, early detection of COVID-19 may also be useful for individual patient care, as high-risk patients who are identified early can be monitored and treatment initiated swiftly if it becomes appropriate. Several treatments show exclusive or increased efficacy only when given early in the infection. The advantage of earlier treatment initiation is likely due to reduction of viral replication either directly or by promotion of an early effective immune response, which prevents a later exaggerated inflammatory response.⁸ Results of the ACTT-1 trial demonstrated a survival benefit in patients for whom Remdesivir was initiated in the early stages of treatment (supplemental oxygen only), but that benefit was lost once disease progressed, and advanced respiratory support was needed.^8–10 Convalescent plasma failed to show efficacy in a study where the median time to entry in the study was 8 days after symptom onset¹¹ but demonstrated protection against progression to respiratory failure when given to individuals of advanced age earlier in the course of the illness.¹² Similarly, the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab or casirivimab plus imdevimab) did not show benefit over placebo in a cohort of hospitalized patients.¹³ However, when given to outpatients with mild or moderate COVID-19, who may have otherwise progressed to hospitalization later in the course of illness, reductions in emergency room or medical visit rates and more rapid declines in viral load^14–16 have been observed. Further, a greater effect was observed among the subgroup of patients who had not yet developed a detectable endogenous antibody response.^8,15

However, it is currently unclear which testing strategy can detect SARS-CoV-2 infection at the earliest stages. Does one need a high-sensitivity test, or would a low-sensitivity test suffice? Which sample type should one use?

Tests with high analytical sensitivity can detect low levels of molecular components of the virus (e.g. RNA or proteins), in a sample. Analytical sensitivity is described by the limit of detection (LOD) of a test (defined as the lowest concentration of the viral molecules that produces 95% or better probability of detection). The lower the LOD, the higher the analytical sensitivity of the assay. LOD of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests are described in various units; the most directly comparable among tests are units that report the number of viruses (viral particles) or viral RNA copies per milliliter of sample. Viral RNA copies/mL are roughly equivalent to genome copy equivalents/mL (GCE/mL) or nucleic acid detectable units/mL (NDU/mL). These LOD values are tabulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).¹⁷ High-sensitivity tests have LOD values equivalent to ∼10² to 10³ copies/mL of sample, whereas low-sensitivity tests have LOD values equivalent to ∼10⁵ to 10⁷ copies/mL. Therefore, to choose the appropriate test for reliable early detection, one needs to measure viral loads present in samples collected early in the course of infection,¹⁸ and then choose a test with an LOD below that viral load. Initial data by us¹⁹ and others^20,21 show that, at least in some humans, SARS-CoV-2 viral load can be low (in the range of 10³–10⁵ copies per mL of saliva sample) early in infection, therefore only high-sensitivity tests would reliably detect infection.

Sampling site or specimen type may also be critical to early detection. Other respiratory viruses have been shown to have detection rates that vary by sampling site,²² which have occasionally been linked to viral tropism. For example, the cellular receptor for entry of MERS-CoV is expressed nearly exclusively in the lower respiratory tract, prompting recommendations for diagnostic testing of specific sample types (bronchoalveolar lavage, sputum and tracheal aspirates).²³ A previous study on SARS-CoV found high levels of viral RNA in saliva and throat wash early in the infection course (before the development of lung lesions), to suggest saliva as a promising sample type for early detection.²⁴ Although nasopharyngeal (NP) swab is often considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection, it requires collection by a healthcare worker and is not well tolerated. Furthermore, the performance of NP swabs for early detection of current SARS-CoV-2 variants is not known. Other sample types, such as nasal (anterior-nares or mid-turbinate) swabs^25–28 and saliva^29–32 are more practical, especially for repeated sampling in serial surveillance testing (also described as “screening”).

Studies comparing paired samples (collected from different locations in the respiratory tract) from the same individual are inconsistent in their findings of which sample type had the better sensitivity. Some studies concluded that nasal swabs outperform saliva/oral fluid^27,33–36 and had higher viral loads,^26,28,34 whereas others concluded that testing performance in different locations of the respiratory tract is similar.^30,37–43 Some studies have observed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva before nasal swabs, or in saliva but not in nasal swabs;^21,44,45 one study of an emerging variant (B.1.616) showed poor detectability of SARS-CoV-2 in NP swabs.⁴⁶ It is not known whether NP is the best respiratory site for currently circulating variants and emerging variants.

There are several possible explanations for these inconsistencies in respiratory sampling site. Most studies comparing clinical sensitivity of different respiratory sites for SARS-CoV-2 detection focused only on viral detection, not viral-load quantification, which is needed to infer whether detection would have been achieved by assays with different LODs. Although a few studies collected samples in RNA-stabilizing buffers,^40,47–49 most have collected dry-swabs or saliva in sterile collection vessels;^{26–28,30,37,50–57} without an RNA-stabilizing buffer, introducing risk of viral degradation during transport and handling, which will affect detection and quantification. Most studies that compared multiple respiratory sites for SARS-CoV-2 detection selected individuals already known to be positive for SARS-CoV-2, thus missing the very earliest detectable loads and also not having context for how far along the course of infection that individual might have been. An excellent study comparing nasal swabs and saliva sampling early in the infection among adults at a university⁵⁸ suggested that high-sensitivity testing is needed for early detection; by leveraging university saliva surveillance testing and enrolling close contacts, the researchers reported longitudinal viral kinetics data from 60 participants, 3 of whom (based on our interpretation of the study) were negative in both sample types upon enrollment, allowing for definitive quantification of the earliest day(s) of infection. The thorough work done here shows both how important it is to obtain early samples, but also how difficult it is to capture samples from which to assess the earliest days of infection.

Negative samples preceding the first positive result are needed confirm with high resolution the true starting point of longitudinal measurements on viral load. In order to compare diagnostic performance at different stages of the infection, studies with longitudinal data often align the comparisons to an infection time point—typically days relative to symptom onset,^{27,30,35,47,58–64} laboratory diagnosis (i.e., first positive test result),^27,38,59,65 or peak viral load,⁵⁸ but these measures can be highly variable among people. Misalignment of illness stage may confound comparisons of sample type sensitivity or viral loads throughout the course of infection. Despite the urgency of defining optimal diagnostic strategies to contain further outbreaks (and spread of variants-of-concern), there is a lack of quantitative data on longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 viral load in paired sample types with sample collection starting prior to earliest detectable viral loads.

To understand the required test sensitivity and the optimal sample type for earliest SARS-CoV-2 detection, we designed a case-ascertained study of household transmission with high-frequency sampling of both saliva and anterior-nares nasal swabs. Building on our earlier work,¹⁹ we enrolled individuals from Los Angeles County, California, ages 6 and older who had recently tested positive (household index case), and their exposed household contacts at risk of infection. All participants self-collected saliva and anterior-nares nasal swabs twice daily, in the morning upon waking and before bed. Importantly, all samples were immediately placed in a guanidinium-based inactivating solution (see Methods) that preserves viral RNA. We measured the stability of RNA in this buffer over the time periods relevant to our sample processing. Samples were screened for SARS-CoV-2 N1 and N2 gene positivity using a high-sensitivity assay and if a transmission event was observed (a previously SARS-CoV-2 negative participant tested positive in at least one sample type), we quantified viral loads in all samples (saliva and nasal swab) prospectively collected from that participant for at least two weeks from their first positive. Quantification was performed via quantitative reverse-transcription PCR (RT-qPCR), with a subset of measurements validated by reverse-transcription droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR), capturing the early and full course of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with high sensitivity.

Results

First, we established and validated two independent quantitative assays to measure SARS-CoV-2 viral load: a RT-qPCR based on the assay put forth by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)⁶⁶ and a RT-ddPCR assay developed by Bio-Rad.⁶⁷ Both of these assays received an emergency use authorization (EUA) for qualitative, but not quantitative, detection of SARS-CoV-2. In initial testing, when combined with standard KingFisher MagMax sample preparation protocols, these assays performed well to quantify heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viral particles spiked into commercially available SARS-CoV-2 negative saliva and nasal fluid from pooled donors. However, they did not provide reliable quantification when we analyzed individual saliva samples freshly collected from positive participants in this study. Carryover of materials from some of the mucus-rich samples was inhibitory, as determined by RT-ddPCR analysis of dilutions of eluted RNA (data not shown). We optimized the extraction and each quantitative assay protocol (see Methods) to obtain more reliable quantification of SARS-CoV-2 viral load. We confirmed that the LOD of the modified assay was 1,000 copies/mL or better (see Methods, Fig. S1).

We cross-validated our quantification methods in two steps. First, we used commercial, heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viral particles to establish calibration curves for both saliva and swab samples to convert RT-qPCR quantification cycle values (Cq, also referred to as cycle thresholds, Ct) to viral load. Input particle concentrations for each point on the curve were calculated based on the stock quantification reported on the certificate of analysis for each lot of particles. We could not extend the calibration curve to very high viral loads because of the limited concentration of viral particle stock; so, to confirm performance at high viral loads, we quantified 42 swab and 63 saliva samples from SARS-CoV-2-positive participants with both RT-qPCR and RT-ddPCR methods. We observed excellent concordance between the calibration curve (Data in Fig. S2), RT-qPCR and RT-ddPCR assays over the entire dynamic range of input concentrations (Fig. 1), even though RT-qPCR eluents were run as-is and RT-ddPCR eluents from high-concentration samples were significantly diluted. For nasal-swab samples, RT-ddPCR values were slightly below the RT-qPCR values, however this difference was consistent across the entire dynamic range, indicating no concentration-dependent biases like enzymatic inhibition. We chose not to adjust the calibration curve to fit RT-ddPCR values; we reported the concentrations based on the calibration curves derived from the certificate of analysis from the BEI reference material. For saliva samples, all points tightly clustered around the x=y line.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification for nasal-swab (A) and saliva (B) specimens from positive participants measured with RT-ddPCR and RT-qPCR.

Participant nasal swab (A) or saliva (B) SARS-CoV-2 N1 concentration (copies/mL) per detection method, RT-ddPCR (Blue circles) and RT-qPCR (orange circles) plotted against geometric mean of RT-qPCR and RT-ddPCR viral load concentrations. A total of 42 nasal swab and 63 saliva samples from study participants were quantified with both methods. Theoretical SARS-CoV-2 concentration input represents data from calibration curves created with a dilution series of contrived samples prepared using commercial, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 particles spiked into commercially available SARS-CoV-2 negative saliva or nasal fluid pooled from human donors (green circles), extracted and detected with RT-qPCR. Grey line represents x=y.

Next, to quantify viral load at the earliest stage of infection, we analyzed the viral loads in the saliva and nasal swabs of participants who were negative in both sample types upon enrollment and became positive during their participation in the study (Fig. 2). We extended each participant’s enrollment in our study to acquire 14 days of paired saliva and nasal-swab samples starting from the first positive sample. Data in Fig. 2 reports the viral load concentrations as measured on the day of extraction. All samples were stored at 4 °C before extraction; time of storage varied between 0-27 days. The stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasal-swab samples was slightly lower (1 Cq loss of RNA detected after a median of 15 days) than the stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva samples (1 Cq loss of RNA detected after a median of 51 days) (Fig. S3). An assessment of how viral-load measurements in Fig. 2 may have been affected by time between sample collection and quantification is included in Fig. S4. Given the large dynamic range of the viral loads in these samples (∼24 Cq or about 10,000,000 fold), we considered stability corresponding to a 1 Cq (2 fold) loss to be adequate.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in paired saliva and nasal-swab samples of seven participants who became SARS-CoV-2 positive during study participation.

(A-G) Self-reported twice-daily symptom data over the course of enrollment are shown as a top panel for each of the participants (see color-coded legend for symptom categories). Demographic data including any reported medical conditions are included in Table S1. Viral loads are reported for the N1 and N2 genes of SARS-CoV-2 for both saliva (black and grey circles) and nasal-swab samples (dark-green and light-green triangles); ND = not detected for Cqs ≥40; Samples with an indeterminate result by the CDC RT-qPCR assay are shown along the horizontal black dashed line. (see Methods for details). The limit of detection (LOD) of the Abbott ID NOW (300,000 NDU/mL¹⁷) is indicated by the horizontal green dashed line; the range of LODs of antigen tests (horizontal green bar) are shown for reference (data are from Table S2 in ref. ¹⁹). A diagnostic test does not provide reliable detection for samples with viral loads below its LOD. For each participant, the first detected saliva point is emphasized with a pink circle and their first nasal-swab point above the LOD of the ID NOW is emphasized with a pink triangle. Vertical shading in grey indicates nighttime (8pm – 8am). Internal control of RNase P gene Cqs from the CDC primer set are provided for each sample to compare self-sampling consistency and sample integrity (failed samples, where RNase P Cq ≥40, are not plotted). Participant gender, age range, and SARS-CoV-2 variant are given in each panel’s title. Two regions of interest (ROI) are indicated by purple-shaded rectangles and discussed in the main text.

Here we report complete viral load curves in saliva and anterior nares nasal swabs from seven individuals (Fig. 2). Each of these participants tested negative (ND, not detected; Fig. 2) in both saliva and nasal swabs upon study enrollment, ensuring that we capture the earliest days of infection. RNase P Cq values remained consistent throughout the collection period for both saliva and nasal swabs for most of the participants (Fig. 2A, B, D, F, and G), indicating observed changes in viral loads were likely not a sampling artifact but rather reflected the underlying biology of the infection. Because nasal swabs are commonly used with low-sensitivity tests, and because such tests are proposed to be utilized for SARS-CoV-2 serial surveillance testing (screening),^68,69 we wished to compare whether low-sensitivity testing with nasal swabs could provide equivalent performance to high-sensitivity testing with saliva.^31,52,70

In six out of seven participants, high-sensitivity saliva testing would have been superior for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with low-sensitivity nasal-swab measurements (and equivalent for the seventh participant). In the first participant, (Fig. 2A), detection occurred first in saliva at low viral load (1.3×10³ copies/mL N1 gene, pink circle), while the nasal swab remained negative, and days before the participant reported any symptoms. As measured, viral load in nasal-swab samples reached the level of LOD of low-sensitivity tests 1.5 days after the first saliva positive samples (pink triangle). This same pattern of earlier detection in high-sensitivity saliva was observed in five of the other six participants: high-sensitivity saliva was 2.5 days earlier (Fig. 2B), 3.5 days earlier (Fig. 2C), 6 days earlier (Fig. 2E), 4.5 days earlier (Fig. 2F), and 2.5 days earlier (Fig. 2G). Even conservatively accounting for potential decreases of viral RNA in the nasal swab resulting from delays between sample collection and quantification only impact the interpretation of two points, conservatively decreasing the delay from 1.5 to 1 day for the first participant (Fig. 2A and Fig. S4A) and from 3.5 to 3 days for the third participant (Fig. 2C and Fig. S4C). The maximum delay in detection between saliva and nasal swab in an unvaccinated person was observed by the youngest participant in our study (see ROI#1 of Fig. 2F). This participant had detectable but low viral load (10³-10⁴) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva for 4 days while nasal swabs remained negative by high-sensitivity measurements. The nasal viral load spiked above 10¹⁰ copies/mL. Even after spiking to high viral load in nasal swab, her only symptoms were mild congestion/runny nose. Even with high-sensitivity nasal swab testing, only one participant tested positive in nasal swab before saliva (Fig. 2D). In this participant, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detectable with a high-sensitivity nasal swab 1 day before high-sensitivity saliva. Nasal swabs reached the detection range of low-sensitivity tests (pink triangle) on the same day as the first saliva sample was detected (pink circle). For all seven participants, high-sensitivity saliva testing would have detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA either the same day or up to 6 days before viral loads in nasal swab reached the detection limits of low-sensitivity nasal swab tests. This pattern of earlier positivity but lower viral loads in saliva compared with nasal swabs was not due to RNA degradation in saliva; when we examined the potential effect of RNA stability there was little effect on RNA concentration over time in saliva samples stored in the preservation buffer at 4 °C (Fig. S3, Fig. S4).

Three participants (Fig. 2C–E) were infected with the same variant, B.1.429 (CAL20), classified as a variant-of-concern at the time of this study. The SARS-CoV-2 variant for the participants in Fig. 2D and Fig. 2E were inferred from the sequenced sample of the household’s presumed index case. Saliva viral loads for each of these participants (Fig. 2C-E) were low. Of note, the participants in Fig. 2C and 2E showed high RNase P Cq values (indicating low concentration of the human control target); and variability of RNase P Cq values across the nasal-swab samples suggests that inconsistent swab-sampling quality could have impacted these participants’ viral load data, and should be taken into account when interpreting those data. These two participants (Fig. 2C and 2E) also had low viral load in both saliva and nasal swabs. Their viral load measurements were near the LOD of our assay, and therefore as expected, many samples from these participants had indeterminate results.

The fifth participant (Fig. 2E) had received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine⁷¹ 13 days prior to her first sample. As the only participant in our study who had received a vaccine dose, observations here are not powered to make conclusions about viral load due to vaccination. This participant had very low viral loads in both saliva and nasal-swab sample types and several indeterminate test results when adjacent viral load measurements were near the LOD of our assay. Peak viral loads were lower and shorter in duration compared with the other six study participants. A high-sensitivity saliva test (pink circle) detected the infection 6 days before viral loads reached the lower range of the LODs of low-sensitivity tests (pink triangle) for this participant. Recent data from individuals infected by the Delta variant suggest viral loads in breakthrough infections are not impacted by vaccination status.^7,72

The final participant (Fig. 2G) with medical history significant for obesity, reported experiencing symptoms beginning 3 days prior to enrollment, and tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by a CLIA-lab test 2 days prior to enrollment in the study. This person would later report more diverse symptoms (including gastrointestinal symptoms) and with higher symptom-severity ratings than the other six participants. Remarkably (see ROI#2 in Fig. 2G), saliva viral load spiked to 3.7×10⁸ viral copies/mL (N1 gene target) while SARS-CoV-2 RNA remained undetectable in nasal swab, even by the high-sensitivity assay used here. This contrast between high and likely infectious viral load in saliva⁷³ at the same time point as a negative nasal swab emphasizes the need for careful choice of sampling site and test sensitivity in the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection to minimize transmission.

Compiled data from all seven participants highlights the non-trivial interplay of anatomical sampling site, infection stage (early vs late), and diagnostic test sensitivity (Fig. 3). Participant results were aligned to the first positive result from either sample type (day 0) and the percentage of positive tests was calculated for each time point (0.5-day intervals) from the first positive sample (Fig. 3A). Based on SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral loads, we found that high-sensitivity saliva testing (100% of participants detected) outperforms low-sensitivity nasal swabs (86% of participants detected) at 5.5 days of positivity (Fig. 3A). If we compare high-sensitivity saliva testing to high-sensitivity nasal-swab testing, this difference is 4.0 days (Fig. S5). However, we emphasize that our data paint a more nuanced view than “saliva is better than swab.” Analytical sensitivity of the test strongly impacts the overall test performance and the preferred sample type: Low-sensitivity saliva testing would have likely yielded the most false-negatives in the first days of infection (only 3 of 7 participants after 5.5 days of positivity) and detecting at most 60% of participants (Fig. S5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Summary of Diagnostic Insights from Study Participants who became infected with SARS-CoV-2 while enrolled in the study

(A) Participant infection time courses were aligned to the first high-sensitivity (LOD of ≤1 × 10³ copies/mL) positive result from either saliva or nasal swab sample type (day 0) and the percentage of positive tests was calculated for each time point (0.5-day intervals) from the first positive sample. The predicted performance of low-sensitivity nasal swabs was determined using the individual SARS-CoV-2 N1 viral load values for each participant individually shown in Fig. 2, or above a viral load threshold of 1.9×10⁵ copies/mL, which is the most-sensitive of the low-sensitivity tests we included in shaded region of Fig. 2. We show the percentage of participants who were detected by our high sensitivity saliva test (black circle) or could be inferred to be detectable by a low-sensitivity nasal swab test (green triangle) at a given timepoint. (B) Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 N1 viral loads of paired samples collected during time windows of the infection (aligned to first positive result by high sensitivity testing of either sample type) are shown for saliva (grey circles) and nasal swabs (green triangles). Paired samples for a given time point are connected with grey lines, with emphasis on paired samples where only saliva (black connecting line) or nasal swab (green connecting line) were positive. ND = Not Detected, Ind = Indeterminate result. (C) Peak SARS-CoV-2 N1 viral loads measured in saliva (grey circles) and nasal swab (green triangles) for each of the seven participants are shown. Horizontal black line indicates the median. (D) Percentage of positive test results (out of total number of tests) are shown for the first 10 days for each participant (day 0 corresponds to the first positive test result in either sample type). Saliva (grey bars) and nasal swab (green bars) are shown. Positivity was either observed (by our high sensitivity test) or inferred to be positive by viral loads above a LOD threshold of 1.9e5 copies/mL for low-sensitivity tests. The symptomatic category includes any sample where one or more symptom was reported at the time of sample collection.

Next, we plotted viral loads in each respiratory site starting from the first positive test (Fig. 3B). Paired samples for a given time point are connected with grey lines, with emphasis on paired samples where only saliva (black connecting line) or nasal swab (green connecting line) were positive. From day 0 to day 6, using high-sensitivity testing for both sample types, saliva is more frequently positive than nasal swabs, shown by bolded black lines (Fig. 3B). Comparison of paired samples between day 6 and day 12 both sample types show highly concordant detection. In a later time interval, between days 12 and 16, nasal swabs are more frequently positive than saliva, shown by bolded green lines (Fig. 3B). The median of peak viral loads is higher in nasal swabs than saliva (Fig. 3C), which is also consistent with literature.^26,28,36

Many testing strategies and decisions are based on the presence or absence of symptoms.^2,74 We considered the positivity rate of high- or low-sensitivity testing methods with each sample type during the first ten days of test-positive infection, separating into categories of no symptoms or symptomatic if the participant reported at least one COVID-19-like symptom (Fig. 3D). This interval of 10 days was selected, to capture the pre-symptomatic and symptomatic phases of infection for this cohort, while avoiding samples collected during the post-symptomatic phase of infection. Regardless of symptom status or sample type, high-sensitivity testing results in considerably higher positivity frequency than low-sensitivity testing (Fig. 3D). For samples collected while participants were asymptomatic, high-sensitivity saliva testing was more effective (74% positivity) than nasal swabs of high- (52%) or low-sensitivity (34%) or of saliva of low-sensitivity (17%). In contrast, during symptomatic phases, which is often concurrent with peak nasal viral loads (Fig. 2), high-sensitivity saliva (88%) and high-sensitivity nasal swab testing (89%) have similar positivity rates. Additionally, based on our measured viral loads, low-sensitivity nasal-swab testing is predicted to perform better in symptomatic cohorts than in asymptomatic persons, consistent with how these tests were originally authorized.

Limitations

Our study needs to be interpreted in the context of its limitations. First, our results capture viral load dynamics from a limited number of individuals from one region of one country with limited SARS-CoV-2 diversity. A larger study with individuals of diverse ages, genetic backgrounds, medical conditions, COVID-19 severity, and SARS-CoV-2 lineages would be ideal to provide a more nuanced and representative understanding of viral dynamics in saliva and nasal-swab samples. Second, the commercial inactivating buffer used here (Spectrum SDNA-1000) is not authorized (at the time of this writing) for the sample collection of nasal swabs. Third, we have paired data for saliva and anterior nares nasal swabs but do not compare nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, sputum, or other lower-respiratory specimens. We do not know whether other sampling sites, such as nasopharyngeal swabs or oropharyngeal swabs, would have provided earlier or later detection than saliva. As mentioned above, parallel sampling of multiple respiratory sites should be done as new variants emerge. Fourth, we do not have data for low-sensitivity tests or any antigen tests, and are inferring ability to pick up infections based on the quantified viral load in the participant samples and the LODs reported by the FDA for the diagnostic platforms. Fifth, our investigation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability in each sample type (saliva, nasal swabs) in the inactivating buffer at 4 °C during storage suggests some degradation may have occurred in some samples, and revealed subtle differences between degradation in saliva and nasal swabs (Fig. S3). See Supplement for a complete analysis of RNA stability. Sixth, our samples were self-collected by participants after detailed training by our study coordinators during the study enrollment process. Samples self-collected without such training may result in lower quality specimens. Similarly, our participants were able to collect saliva samples during specific parts of their day (after waking and before going to bed) without eating, drinking, or brushing teeth prior to collection. This protocol may not be practical in all settings and we do not know how deviations from this protocol would affect viral loads in saliva. Lastly, our samples were self-collected in a guanidinium-based inactivating and stabilizing buffer that preserves viral RNA but eliminated the opportunity to also perform viral culture.

Conclusions

By rapidly enrolling household members at high risk for contracting COVID-19 and having them self-sample and report symptoms twice daily in paired respiratory sites, we were able to observe patterns in SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the earliest days of infection. All seven participants tested negative by both sample types (saliva and nasal swabs) upon enrollment, ensuring we captured the earliest detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load (within 12 hours) in both sample types. Our dataset helps inform diagnostic testing strategies by showing differences in viral loads in paired nasal swabs and saliva samples at high temporal resolution (twice daily) during the early days and pre-symptomatic phases of infection.

Methods

Refer to the Supplementary Information for detailed methods.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Data are available on CaltechDATA at https://data.caltech.edu/records/1942

COMPETING INTERESTS STATEMENT

RFI is a co-founder, consultant, and a director and has stock ownership of Talis Biomedical Corp. In addition, RFI is an inventor on a series of patents licensed by the University of Chicago to Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. in the context of ddPCR.

FUNDING

This study is based on research funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-023124). The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This work was also funded by the Ronald and Maxine Linde Center for New Initiatives at the California Institute of Technology and the Jacobs Institute for Molecular Engineering for Medicine at the California Institute of Technology. AW is supported by a National Institutes of Health NIGMS Predoctoral Training Grant (GM008042) and a UCLA DGSOM Geffen Fellowship; MMC is supported by a Caltech Graduate Student Fellowship; and MP and JTB are each partially supported by National Institutes of Health Biotechnology Leadership Predoctoral Training Program (BLP) fellowship from Caltech’s Donna and Benjamin M. Rosen Bioengineering Center (T32GM112592).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

• Figures S1 – S5

• Table S1

• Author Contributions

Supplemental Information

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S1. Limit of detection of saliva and nasal-swab RT-qPCR assays used in this study.

RT-qPCR quantification cycle (Cq) for SARS-CoV-2 N1 gene (blue circle), N2 gene (purple circle), and human RNase P gene (orange circle) in 20 replicates of pooled matrix spiked with 1000 copies/mL (cp/mL) heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 RNA and 3 replicates of pooled matrix spiked with a buffer blank for saliva (A) and nasal-swab (B) samples. Duplicate RT-qPCR reactions were performed for each extraction replicate and the averages are shown, with the following three exceptions: replicate 9 (saliva), in which the N1 gene only amplified in 1 of the duplicate runs (N2 in this run was positive, so per CDC EUA guidelines⁸⁷ this run was interpreted as inconclusive), replicate 10 (nasal swab) in which the N2 gene only amplified in 1 of the duplicate runs (N1 in this run was positive, so this run was interpreted as inconclusive), and replicate 18 (nasal swab) in which the N1 gene only amplified in 1 of the duplicate runs (N2 in this run was positive, so this run was also interpreted as inconclusive). None of the samples spiked at 1000 copies/mL gave a negative detection result.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S2. Calibration curve of SARS-CoV-2 inactivated particles to establish viral load conversion equations.

Linear regression of RT-qPCR quantification cycle (Cq) for N1 (red circle) and N2 (blue circles) genes at known concentrations of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 particles for saliva (A) or nasal swab (B) using this study’s collection and laboratory workflows. Triplicate replicates per concentration were performed. Linear regression for N1 represented by red line and N2 represented by blue line. Linear regression R² values are 0.986 for N1 in nasal swabs, 0.994 for N2 in nasal swabs, 0.989 for N1 in saliva, and 0.979 for N2 in saliva.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S3. SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability over time in Spectrum SDNA-1000 buffer at 4 °C.

(A) Positive extraction control samples from 71 saliva extraction runs and 27 nasal-swab extraction runs are included to show the measurement noise in the quantification workflow. The standard deviation for the positive control measurements was 0.74 Cq for saliva and 0.49 for nasal swab. (B) Empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDF) for the observed half-life (days) of participant saliva (orange stars) and nasal-swab (blue stars) samples in Spectrum SDNA-1000 buffer stored at 4 °C. Individual samples were extracted at multiple time points. The ECDF represents the summed probability mass function over the Cq half-lives observed. Half-life in this context refers to the time required to observe a 1 Cq increase (representing a 2-fold decrease) in RNA detected by RT-qPCR. The median point is identified with a green star for each sample, at 15.0 days for nasal swabs and 51.0 days for saliva. Of the 110 total participant saliva samples plotted in panel B, 36 samples had no evidence of degradation (DNO) under the time frame measured. Only 3 of the 36 total participant nasal-swab samples plotted in panel B had no evidence of degradation (DNO) under the time frame measured. DNO = degradation not observed, meaning that the difference in extraction Cq values of the same sample at multiple time points was within 1 standard deviation observed in replicate extraction positive controls for the respective sample type, as shown in panel A.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S4. Predicted impact of SARS-CoV-2 RNA stability on viral loads shown in Fig. 2.

(A-G) The time [days] of sample storage at 4 °C between sample collection and RNA extraction is shown in the topmost panels. Open circles represent saliva samples and yellow triangles represent the nasal swabs. Viral load (black and grey circles) calculations are corrected for the median half-life (1 Cq decrease in RNA detected by RT-qPCR) of each sample type and the duration of storage at 4 °C before quantification (15 days for 2-fold decrease in detected RNA in nasal swabs and 51 days for 2-fold decreased in detected RNA in saliva). The degradation ranges, represented by a shaded yellow (nasal swab) or pink (saliva) region to represent how a measured value of 1,000 copies/mL may have degraded from concentrations in this range. As in Fig. 2, ND = not detected for Cqs ≥40 (see Methods for details). The limit of detection (LOD) of the saliva and nasal-swab assays used here (1,000 cp/mL) is indicated with the purple dashed line; the LOD of the Abbott ID NOW (300,000 NDU/mL¹⁷) is indicated by the horizontal green dashed line; the range of LODs of antigen tests (horizontal green bar) are shown for reference (data are from Table S2 in ref. ¹⁹). A diagnostic test does not provide reliable detection for samples with viral loads below its LOD. For each participant, the first detected saliva point is emphasized with a pink circle and their first nasal-swab point above the LOD of the ID NOW is emphasized with a pink triangle. Vertical shading in grey indicates nighttime (8pm – 8am). Internal control of RNase P gene Cqs from the CDC primer set are provided for each sample to compare self-sampling consistency and sample integrity (failed samples, where RNase P Cq ≥40, are not plotted). Samples with an indeterminate result by the CDC RT-qPCR assay are shown along the horizontal black dashed line. Participant gender, age range, and SARS-CoV-2 variant is given in each panel’s title. Two regions of interest (ROI) are indicated by purple-shaded rectangles and discussed in the main text. For the two points that change interpretation with the viral load adjustment, orange triangles show which new data points become the first nasal-swab point in range of low-sensitivity tests.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure S5. Participants positive by each sample type and test sensitivity at each timepoint from the incidence of infection.

Infection time courses were aligned to the first positive result from our high-sensitivity (LOD of ≤1e3 copies/mL) testing for either sample type. Using the individual SARS-CoV-2 N1 viral load values for each participant individually shown in Figure 2, we show the percentage of participants who were detected by our high-sensitivity saliva (black circle with pink border) or nasal swab (green triangle) assay (LOD ≤1e3 copies/mL) or could be inferred to be detectable by a low-sensitivity nasal swab (green triangle with pink border) or saliva (black circle) test (with an LOD of 1.9e5 copies/mL) at a given timepoint. Positivity by the high-sensitivity saliva test and low-sensitivity nasal swab test is also shown in Fig. 3 panel A.

Author Contributions