Cargando…

Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe

BACKGROUND: Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: von Stillfried, Saskia, Boor, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Medizin 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7919251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33646360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00292-021-00919-8
_version_ 1783658100471889920
author von Stillfried, Saskia
Boor, Peter
author_facet von Stillfried, Saskia
Boor, Peter
author_sort von Stillfried, Saskia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed’s curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV‑2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience. RESULTS: Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV‑2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7919251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Medizin
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79192512021-03-02 Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe von Stillfried, Saskia Boor, Peter Pathologe Schwerpunkt: COVID-19 BACKGROUND: Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed’s curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV‑2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience. RESULTS: Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV‑2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary. Springer Medizin 2021-03-01 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7919251/ /pubmed/33646360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00292-021-00919-8 Text en © Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Schwerpunkt: COVID-19
von Stillfried, Saskia
Boor, Peter
Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe
title Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe
title_full Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe
title_fullStr Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe
title_full_unstemmed Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe
title_short Nachweismethoden von SARS-CoV-2 in Gewebe
title_sort nachweismethoden von sars-cov-2 in gewebe
topic Schwerpunkt: COVID-19
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7919251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33646360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00292-021-00919-8
work_keys_str_mv AT vonstillfriedsaskia nachweismethodenvonsarscov2ingewebe
AT boorpeter nachweismethodenvonsarscov2ingewebe