<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Damhorst GL</submitter><funding>NCATS</funding><funding>NCATS NIH HHS</funding><funding>NIDCD</funding><funding>NIBIB</funding><pagination>e27188</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10945130</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>10(6)</volume><pubmed_abstract>Limited data highlight the need to understand differences in SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant viral load between the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, mid-turbinate (MT)/anterior nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. MT, OP, and saliva samples from symptomatic individuals in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022 and longitudinal samples from a small familial cohort were tested by both RT-PCR and ultrasensitive antigen assays. Higher concentrations in the nares were observed in the familial cohort, but a dominant sample type was not found among 39 cases in the cross-sectional cohort. The composite of positive MT or OP assay for both RT-PCR and antigen assay trended toward higher diagnostic yield but did not achieve significant difference. Our data did not identify a singular preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but higher levels of saliva nucleocapsid, a trend toward higher yield of composite OP/MT result, and association of apparent MT or OP predominance with symptoms warrant further study.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Heliyon</journal><pubmed_title>Comparison of RT-PCR and antigen test sensitivity across nasopharyngeal, nares, and oropharyngeal swab, and saliva sample types during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10945130</pmcid><funding_grant_id>UL1 TR002378</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Piantadosi AL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Greenleaf M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pollock NR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Swanson S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Frediani JK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>O'Neal JW</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>McLendon K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martin GS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lam WA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Roback JD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Levy JM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Waggoner JJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rao A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Baugh TJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>O'Sick WH</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lin J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bassit L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sullivan JA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Westbrook A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Damhorst GL</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Comparison of RT-PCR and antigen test sensitivity across nasopharyngeal, nares, and oropharyngeal swab, and saliva sample types during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant.</name><description>Limited data highlight the need to understand differences in SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant viral load between the gold standard nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, mid-turbinate (MT)/anterior nasal swabs, oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, and saliva. MT, OP, and saliva samples from symptomatic individuals in Atlanta, GA, in January 2022 and longitudinal samples from a small familial cohort were tested by both RT-PCR and ultrasensitive antigen assays. Higher concentrations in the nares were observed in the familial cohort, but a dominant sample type was not found among 39 cases in the cross-sectional cohort. The composite of positive MT or OP assay for both RT-PCR and antigen assay trended toward higher diagnostic yield but did not achieve significant difference. Our data did not identify a singular preferred sample type for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but higher levels of saliva nucleocapsid, a trend toward higher yield of composite OP/MT result, and association of apparent MT or OP predominance with symptoms warrant further study.</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Mar</publication><modification>2026-06-28T03:09:55.282Z</modification><creation>2026-06-28T03:06:49.747Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10945130</accession><cross_references><pubmed>38500996</pubmed><doi>10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27188</doi></cross_references></HashMap>