ABSTRACT
Background Current recommendations for the diagnosis of mpox rely on lesion-swabs as the gold-standard specimen type, even though many patients experience symptoms prior to lesion-onset. Alternative sample types, such as saliva, which enable earlier detection could bolster the mpox response by mitigating transmission and facilitating access to antiviral treatments.
Methods We evaluated five PCR assays and compared their detection of mpox DNA extracted from 30 saliva specimens collected in Spectrum SDNA-1000 tubes. We sequenced seven mpox-positive samples and assessed concordance with the primers and probes of the PCR assays. Following, we incorporated these PCR assays into a simplified, extraction-free protocol to evaluate its feasibility for testing raw (unsupplemented) saliva samples. To further explore the potential of this approach, we investigated the stability of mpox detection in raw saliva diluted 1:10 and 1:100 in mpox-negative saliva, after storage at 4°C, room temperature (∼19°C), 30°C, and 40°C for 72 hours and through simulated shipping conditions.
Results Despite identifying three nucleotide substitutions in the CDC’s Monkeypox virus Generic Real-Time PCR Test’s primer sequences, we observed no difference in the mean Ct-values generated between assays. We successfully incorporated each assay into our saliva-based extraction-free PCR protocol. Detection in raw saliva following storage at 4°C, ∼19°C, and 30°C remained relatively stable for 24-48 hours and following simulated shipping conditions.
Conclusions This pilot investigation supports a flexible, saliva-based, extraction-free PCR test as a promising approach for diagnosis, outbreak response or ongoing surveillance of mpox. With detection in raw saliva remaining stable for 24-48 hours and through simulated shipping temperatures, saliva-based sampling and simplified testing could reduce diagnostic costs, increase access to testing and address hurdles in low- and middle-income countries.
Competing Interest Statement
ALW has received consulting and/or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Merck, Diasorin, PPS Health, Primary Health, Co-Diagnostics, and Global Diagnostic Systems for work unrelated to this project, and is Principal Investigator on research grants from Pfizer, Merck, and NIH RADx UP to Yale University and from NIH RADx, Balvi.io and Shield T3 to SalivaDirect, Inc.. All other co-authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Yale University's Fund for Lesbian and Gay Studies (FLAGS) and SalivaDirect, Inc..
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was conducted with Institutional Review Board approval from Yale Human Research Protection Program (Protocol ID. 2000033293), which allowed for the use of remnant clinical samples and was considered as non-human subjects research. No personal identifiable information was used for this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Additional supporting literature has been added, additional DNA stability studies, GenBank Accession Numbers of submitted sequences.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
