Saliva Testing Offers Easier and Earlier Detection of COVID-19

Saliva Testing Offers Easier and Earlier Detection of COVID-19

Dr. Andrew Brooks of RUCDR Infinite Biologics holds up a saliva sample.

(Photo credit: Nick Romanenko/Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)



The patient tilts back her head and winces as the long swab stick pushes six inches up her nose. The tip twirls around uncomfortably before it's withdrawn.

"Our saliva test can detect the virus in asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases."

A gloved and gowned healthcare worker wearing a face shield and mask tells the patient that she will learn whether she is positive for COVID-19 as soon as the lab can process her test.

This is the typical unpleasant scenario for getting a coronavirus test. But times are rapidly changing: Today, for the first time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared one company to sell saliva collection kits for individuals to use at home.

Scientists at the startup venture, RUCDR Infinite Biologics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, say that saliva testing offers an easier, more useful alternative to the standard nasal swab.

"Our saliva test can detect the virus in asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases," said Dr. Andrew Brooks, chief operating officer at RUCDR.

Another venture, Darwin BioSciences in Colorado, has separately developed an innovative method of testing saliva for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Saliva testing can allow earlier detection to identify people who may not know they are contagious, say scientists at both companies. In addition, because patients spit into a tube or cup, saliva testing is safer for healthcare workers than taking swabs. This frees up scarce personal protective equipment (PPE) for use elsewhere. Nasal swabs themselves have been in scarce supply.

Saliva testing, if it becomes widespread, potentially could mean opening society sooner. The more ubiquitous testing becomes across the population, experts say, the more feasible it becomes for public health officials to trace and isolate contacts, especially of asymptomatic cases. Testing early and often will be essential to containing emerging hot spots before a vast outbreak can take root.

Darwin Biosceiences is preparing to seek an FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) this month for its patented "CoVScreen" testing system, which potentially could be available to labs nationally by mid-summer.

Meanwhile, Infinite Biologics will now begin selling kits to consumers for home collection, upon order by a physician. The FDA said that the company's saliva test was as accurate as the nasal swab method used by health care professionals. An FDA summary documenting the company's data reported: "There was 100% positive and negative agreement between the results obtained from testing of saliva and those obtained from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs."

The greatest scientific advantage, said Dr. Brooks, is that nasal and oral swabs only collect the surface area where the swab goes, which may not be the place with most viral load. In contrast, the virus occurs throughout a saliva sample, so the test is more trustworthy.

The lab at Rutgers can process 20,000 tests a day, with a 48-hour turnaround. They have 75,000 tests ready to ship now.

The Leap: Detecting Sickness Before You Feel It

"We wanted to create a device that could detect infections before symptoms appeared," explained Nicholas Meyerson, co-founder and CEO of Darwin.

For more than 300 years, he said, "the thermometer was the gold standard for detecting disease because we thought the first sign of illness was a fever. This COVID-19 pandemic has proven that not all pathogens cause a fever. You can be highly contagious without knowing it."

"The question is whether we can scale up fast enough to meet the need. I believe saliva testing can help."

Therefore, Meyerson and co-founder Sara Sawyer from the University of Colorado began to identify RNA biomarkers that can sense when a pathogen first enters a molecule and "sets off alarms." They focused on the nucleic acids concentrated in saliva as the best and easiest place to collect samples for testing.

"The isothermal reaction in saliva takes place at body or room temperature," he said, "so there's no need for complicated testing machinery. The chemical reaction can be read out on a paper strip, like a pregnancy test -- two stripes if you're sick, and one stripe if you're okay."

Before the pandemic, limited but successful human trials were already underway at CU in Boulder and at the CU Anschutz Medical Campus east of Denver. "This was our proof of concept," he said.

Darwin was founded in March and has secured enough venture capital to concentrate protype development on detecting the virus causing COVID-19. So far, said Meyerson, "Everything works."

A small double-blind test of 30 samples at CU produced 100 percent accuracy. "I'm not sure if that will hold true as we go into clinical trials," he said, "but I'm confident we will satisfy all the requirements for at least 95 percent clinical validation."

The specific "CoVStick" test strips will roll out soon, he said: "We hope before the second wave of the pandemic hits."

The broader saliva test-strip product from Darwin, "SickStick," is still one to two years away from deployment by the military and introduction into the consumer drugstore market for home use, said Meyerson. It will affordably and quickly detect a range of viral and bacterial infections.

An illustration of the "CoVStick."

(Darwin Biosciences)

A Potential Game Changer

Society needs widespread testing daily, said George Church, founding core faculty of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University. Speaking at an online SynBioBeta webinar in April, he urged developing stockpiles of testing kits for home use.

As for any potential of false positives, Church said a much bigger risk is not having enough tests.

"Saliva testing is going to speed up the timeline for opening society a lot," said Meyerson. "People need to self-collect samples at home. A lot more people are going to be willing to spit into a tube than to push a swab six inches up their own nose."

Brooks, of Rutgers, addressed the big picture. "It's critical that we open society as soon as possible to minimize the economic impact of the pandemic. Testing is the surest and safest path. The question is whether we can scale up fast enough to meet the need. I believe saliva testing can help."

Judah Freed
Judah Ken Freed is an award-winning author, seasoned journalist and book publishing consultant based in Denver. His two thousand published articles and essays have run in local and global publications from Westword to Huffington Post to The Sun. A futurist at heart, he pioneered coverage of the internet and interactive TV for the top media industry trade magazines in the USA and Europe (Multichannel News, TV Technology, Euromedia, Inter@ctive Week, others). His interviews with media visionaries, and his writings on the social effects of new media, drew calls to speak on four continents. His writings on global thinking, featured on BookTV, won 2007 and 2012 Nautilus Awards for best social change books. Inspired by being a Stage IV cancer survivor, and informed by his work as the Director of Publishing for RIP Medical Debt, he is keen to write about innovations in the life sciences for leapsmag. Follow him at JudahFreed.com or @judahfreed.
Embrace the mess: how to choose which scientists to trust

A dozen bioethicists and researchers shared their advice on how to spot the scientists searching for the truth more than money, ego or fame.

Adobe Stock

It’s no easy task these days for people to pick the scientists they should follow. According to a recent poll by NORC at the University of Chicago, only 39 percent of Americans have a "great deal" of confidence in the scientific community. The finding is similar to Pew research last year showing that 29 percent of Americans have this level of confidence in medical scientists.

Not helping: All the money in science. Just 20 percent of Pew’s survey respondents think scientists are transparent about conflicts of interest with industry. While this issue is common to many fields, the recent gold rush to foot the bill for research on therapies for healthy aging may be contributing to the overall sense of distrust. “There’s a feeling that at some point, the FDA may actually designate aging as a disease,” said Pam Maher, a neuroscientist who studies aging at Salk Institute. “That may be another impetus for a lot of these companies to start up.”

But partnering with companies is an important incentive for researchers across biomedical fields. Many scientists – with and without financial ties and incentives – are honest, transparent and doing important, inspiring work. I asked more than a dozen bioethicists and researchers in aging how to spot the scientists who are searching for the truth more than money, ego or fame.

Keep Reading Keep Reading
Matt Fuchs
Matt Fuchs is the host of the Making Sense of Science podcast and served previously as the editor-in-chief of Leaps.org. He writes as a contributor to the Washington Post, and his articles have also appeared in the New York Times, WIRED, Nautilus Magazine, Fortune Magazine and TIME Magazine. Follow him @fuchswriter.
What will the $100 genome mean?

A company has slashed the cost of assessing a person's genome to just $100. With lower costs - and as other genetic tools mature and evolve - a wave of new therapies could be coming in the near future.

Adobe Stock

In May 2022, Californian biotech Ultima Genomics announced that its UG 100 platform was capable of sequencing an entire human genome for just $100, a landmark moment in the history of the field. The announcement was particularly remarkable because few had previously heard of the company, a relative unknown in an industry long dominated by global giant Illumina which controls about 80 percent of the world’s sequencing market.

Ultima’s secret was to completely revamp many technical aspects of the way Illumina have traditionally deciphered DNA. The process usually involves first splitting the double helix DNA structure into single strands, then breaking these strands into short fragments which are laid out on a glass surface called a flow cell. When this flow cell is loaded into the sequencing machine, color-coded tags are attached to each individual base letter. A laser scans the bases individually while a camera simultaneously records the color associated with them, a process which is repeated until every single fragment has been sequenced.

Instead, Ultima has found a series of shortcuts to slash the cost and boost efficiency. “Ultima Genomics has developed a fundamentally new sequencing architecture designed to scale beyond conventional approaches,” says Josh Lauer, Ultima’s chief commercial officer.

Keep Reading Keep Reading
David Cox
David Cox is a science and health writer based in the UK. He has a PhD in neuroscience from the University of Cambridge and has written for newspapers and broadcasters worldwide including BBC News, New York Times, and The Guardian. You can follow him on Twitter @DrDavidACox.