ABSTRACT
Background While the sensitivity of detection of pneumococcal carriage can be improved by testing respiratory tract samples with qPCR, concerns have been raised regarding the specificity of this approach. We therefore investigated the reliability of the widely-used lytA qPCR assay when applied to saliva samples from older adults in relation to a more specific qPCR assay (piaB).
Methods During the autumn/winter seasons of 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, saliva was collected at multiple timepoints from 103 healthy adults aged 21-40 (n=34) and ≥64 (n=69) years. Following culture-enrichment, extracted DNA was tested using qPCR for piaB and lytA. By sequencing the variable region of rpsB (S2-typing), we identified the species of bacteria isolated from samples testing lytA-positive only.
Results While 30/344 (8.7%) saliva samples (16.5% individuals) tested qPCR-positive for both piaB and lytA, 52 (15.1%) samples tested lytA-positive only. No samples tested piaB-positive only. Through extensive re-culture of the 32 lytA-positive samples collected in 2018/2019, we isolated 23 strains (from 8 samples, from 5 individuals) that were also qPCR-positive for only lytA. Sequencing determined that Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus infantis were predominantly responsible for this lytA-positive qPCR signal.
Conclusions We identified a comparatively large proportion of samples generating positive signals with the widely used lytA-qPCR and identified non-pneumococcal streptococcal species responsible for this signal. This highlights the importance of testing for the presence of multiple gene targets in tandem for reliable and specific detection of pneumococcus in respiratory tract samples.
Competing Interest Statement
ALW has received consulting and/or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Diasorin, PPS Health, Co-Diagnostics, and Global Diagnostic Systems for work unrelated to this project, and and is Principal Investigator on research grants from Pfizer, Merck and Flambeau Diagnostics to Yale University. DMW has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Affinivax, and Matrivax for work unrelated to this project and is Principal Investigator on research grants and contracts with Pfizer and Merck to Yale University. All other co-authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, grant number R01-AI123208 to DMW and grant numbers K24-AG042489 and U19 AI089992 to ACS, and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at Yale (P30-AG21342) to ACS. The funding agencies were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
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:
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Yale Human Research Protection Program (Protocol ID. 0409027018).
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Co-senior authors
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
