Authors:
Fatimah AlMutawa Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada
London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada

Search for other papers by Fatimah AlMutawa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3978-1823
,
Ana Cabrera Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada
London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada

Search for other papers by Ana Cabrera in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Feifei Chen London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada

Search for other papers by Feifei Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Johan Delport Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada
London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada

Search for other papers by Johan Delport in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

Background

Early identification of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease of 2019) by diagnostic tests played an important role in the isolation of infectious patients and management of this pandemic. Various methodologies and diagnostic platforms are available. The current “gold standard” for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) diagnosis is real-time reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). To overcome the limitations posed by the short supply experienced early during the pandemic and to increase our capacity, we assessed the performance of the MassARRAY System (Agena Bioscience).

Methods

MassARRAY System (Agena Bioscience) combines RT-PCR (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) with high-throughput mass spectrometry processing. We compared the MassARRAY performance to a research-use-only E-gene/EAV (Equine Arteritis Virus) assay and RNA Virus Master PCR. Discordant results were tested with a laboratory-developed assay using the Corman et al. E-gene primers and probes.

Results

186 patient specimens were analyzed using the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel. The performance characteristics were as follows: the positive agreement was 85.71%, 95% CI (78.12 – 91.45), and the negative agreement was 96.67%, 95% CI (88.47 – 99.59). 19/186 (10.2%) results were found to be discordant and assessed by a different assay with the exception of 1, where the sample was not available for repeat testing. 14 out of 18 agreed with the MassARRAY after testing with the secondary assay. The overall performance after discordance testing was as follows: the positive agreement was 97.3%, 95% CI (90.58 – 99.67), and the negative agreement was 97.14%, 95% CI (91.88 – 99.41).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that the MassARRAY System is an accurate and sensitive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Following the discordant agreement with an alternate RT-PCR test, the performance was found to have sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy exceeding 97%, making it a viable diagnostic tool. It can be used as an alternative method during periods when real-time RT-PCR reagent supply chains are disrupted.

Abstract

Background

Early identification of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease of 2019) by diagnostic tests played an important role in the isolation of infectious patients and management of this pandemic. Various methodologies and diagnostic platforms are available. The current “gold standard” for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) diagnosis is real-time reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). To overcome the limitations posed by the short supply experienced early during the pandemic and to increase our capacity, we assessed the performance of the MassARRAY System (Agena Bioscience).

Methods

MassARRAY System (Agena Bioscience) combines RT-PCR (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) with high-throughput mass spectrometry processing. We compared the MassARRAY performance to a research-use-only E-gene/EAV (Equine Arteritis Virus) assay and RNA Virus Master PCR. Discordant results were tested with a laboratory-developed assay using the Corman et al. E-gene primers and probes.

Results

186 patient specimens were analyzed using the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel. The performance characteristics were as follows: the positive agreement was 85.71%, 95% CI (78.12 – 91.45), and the negative agreement was 96.67%, 95% CI (88.47 – 99.59). 19/186 (10.2%) results were found to be discordant and assessed by a different assay with the exception of 1, where the sample was not available for repeat testing. 14 out of 18 agreed with the MassARRAY after testing with the secondary assay. The overall performance after discordance testing was as follows: the positive agreement was 97.3%, 95% CI (90.58 – 99.67), and the negative agreement was 97.14%, 95% CI (91.88 – 99.41).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that the MassARRAY System is an accurate and sensitive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Following the discordant agreement with an alternate RT-PCR test, the performance was found to have sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy exceeding 97%, making it a viable diagnostic tool. It can be used as an alternative method during periods when real-time RT-PCR reagent supply chains are disrupted.

Introduction

As of February 2023, there have been 753,651,712 reported COVID-19 (coronavirus disease of 2019) infections since the WHO announced the global COVID-19 pandemic. The current pandemic has resulted in 6,813,845 deaths worldwide [1]. These figures may be underestimated [2]. Coronaviruses are members of the family Coronaviridae. They are single-stranded, nonsegmented, enveloped, positive-sense RNA viruses. The name comes from their crown-like shape, seen on electron microscopy, with spike protein projections around their surface [3]. This group of viruses can infect both humans and animals, resulting in a spectrum of clinical syndromes, including, most often, acute respiratory illness [4]. In addition to SARS-CoV-2, six recognized coronaviruses can currently infect humans. HCoV-229E and HCoVNL63 belong to the Alphacoronavirus genus. HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-OC43, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV belong to the Betacoronavirus genus [3]. Some strains are zoonotic and associated with severe outcomes [5].

The early identification and isolation of infectious patients played an important role in preventing the spread and propagation of this pandemic. Microbiology laboratories are playing a crucial role in diagnosing COVID-19 cases. Various methodologies and diagnostic platforms are available, including nucleic acid amplification tests, serology and antigen detection [6, 7]. Over the past couple of years, there have been tremendous efforts to improve the detection and diagnostic testing for COVID-19. We recognize the importance of increasing laboratory capacity to better support our community. This necessitates overcoming limitations posed by reagent costs, supply chain obstructions, and instrument availability.

The current “gold standard” for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This method is of the highest sensitivity but requires specialized equipment and expensive reagents [8]. Here we assess the performance of the MassARRAY System (Agena Bioscience, San Diego, CA, USA). This assay combines RT-PCR with high-throughput mass spectrometry (MS) processing compared to the RT-PCR assay used in our laboratory. MassARRAY detects RT-PCR products using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI/TOF) mass spectrometry. MALDI/TOF has been widely used in clinical microbiology to identify bacterial isolates from clinical specimens [9]. It generates protein spectra that serves as the finger print for each organism. It has been recently used to characterize fungi and viruses [10]. Below is a summary of our assessment.

Methods

Specimens

Nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected patients of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection submitted to our laboratory at the London Health Sciences Center (LHSC) for diagnosis were tested in parallel on both platforms. A total of 186 patient specimens were included in this study. Total RNA was extracted using the Maxwell® HT Viral TNA Kit (Cat No. AX2340, Promega, Madison, WI, USA) and Hamilton STARline high-throughput automation.

Real-time RT-PCR (Standard PCR)

A research-use-only E-gene/EAV (70 bp fragment from Equine Arteritis Virus-used as an internal control) Virus assay (Cat No. 40-0776-96, TIB MOLBIOL, Berlin, Germany) and RNA Virus Master (Cat No. 06754155001, Roche, Berlin, Germany) were used for the SARS-CoV-2 screening with an in-house validated diagnostic algorithm for testing. The EAV target has to be positive before the result can be interpreted as “NOT DETECTED,” as seen in Table 1. The assay was run on LightCycler 480 II instruments according to the manufacturer's instructions. 10 µL of master mix and 10 µl of eluate were used in every reaction. Assay interpretation is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Real-time PCR interpretation

E-GENE CtEAVReport
<35+/−SARS-CoV-2 DETECTED
35–39+/−SARS-CoV-2 INDETERMINATE
>39+SARS-CoV-2 NOT DETECTED
No amplification+SARS-CoV-2 NOT DETECTED
No amplificationINVALID

(Cat No. 40-0776-96, TIB MOLBIOL, Berlin, Germany).

(Cat No. 06754155001, Roche, Berlin, Germany).

MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 panel

Residual de-identified RNA extracts previously tested for SARS-CoV-2 were used for this study. The MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel is a multiplexed assay that targets five SARS-CoV-2 specific regions in the nucleocapsid (N) gene, ORF1 gene, and ORF1ab gene along with a control assay for RNase P (MS2) (Agena Bioscience, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA). The assay was performed following the manufacturer's recommendations. In brief, 3 µl of RNA extract was used for a one-step reverse transcription and PCR amplification of the target regions. The product then transferred to the chip and loaded into the analyzer. Laser is applied for the desorption and ionization step. The molecules are separated and accelerate through the tube towards the detector based on their mass. A spectrum is generated and the data is then analyzed by the software (Fig. 1). Generation of spectra eliminate the need of fluorescent detection. Assay interpretation is summarized in Table 2.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

MassARRAY system

Citation: European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology 13, 1; 10.1556/1886.2023.00013

Table 2.

MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 panel interpretation

N1N2N3ORF1ORF1 abMS2QC StatusReport
Any 2 or more ++PassSARS-CoV-2 detected
Any 1 ++PassSARS-CoV-2 inconclusive
None ++PassSARS-CoV-2 not detected
Any 2 or more +WarningSARS-CoV-2 detected
Any 1 +WarningSARS-CoV-2 inconclusive
None +WarningInvalid

(Agena Bioscience, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA).

Discordance agreement

Discordant results obtained for specimens with the standard of care assay in our laboratory, and the MassARRAY were tested with a secondary assay. This was a laboratory-developed assay using the Corman et al. E-gene primers and probes [11]. RNase P was included as an internal control. The resulting logic used was the same as that of our standard of care. This assay was clinically validated in our lab.

Statistical analysis

Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and confidence intervals were calculated using MedCalc Statistical Software.

Ethics

Submission to Western Research Ethics Board is not required as this study is considered a quality improvement project.

Results

186 patient specimens were analyzed using the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Nucleic acids were extracted for all specimens and tested according to the standard of care in our laboratory. Saved eluates were run on the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel. As seen in Fig. 2, 135 specimens were in complete categorical agreement. Twenty-five specimens with ct values >35 resulted as detected with the MassARRAY panel. These specimens were not considered as discordance as they were detected by the standard PCR assay at higher ct values. Nineteen specimens showed discordant results. Seven specimens were excluded (invalid), 4 of these invalid results on the MassARRAY panel were detected by the standard PCR assay at ct values 30–35. The invalid results were due to the failure of internal control with no positive target on the MassARRAY. Unfortunately, there was no eluate/specimen or enough volume left for retesting with the third assay. All those 4 specimens also showed failure of the standard PCR internal control, but the E gene was detected at the following ct values: 30.2, 30.4, 32.5, 34.7. This may be due to some level of inhibition present in these specimens. Stratified results are summarized in Table 3, and calculated performance characteristics are tabulated in Table 4.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Specimens included in this study and discordant agreement. Indeterminate: Ct 35–39 on the standard assay. Inconclusive: one target positive on the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Invalid: no positive target and control failure on the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel

Citation: European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology 13, 1; 10.1556/1886.2023.00013

Table 3.

Stratified performance of MassARRAY against diagnostic standard of care at LHSC

TIB MOLBIOL
InterpretationNot detectedDetectedIndeterminate
InterpretationCriteriaCt 0 or >39Ct < 30Ct 30–35Ct 35–39
Mass ARRAYNot detectedNone +580017*
DetectedAny 2 or more +1**313625
InconclusiveAny 1 +1*0010
InvalidNone + & QC failure3040
Totals63314052

*Alternative method used to arbitrate discordances.

**Specimen not available for discordance agreement.

Table 4.

Performance characteristics of MassARRAY

A) 2×2 data table
TIB MOLBIOL
InterpretationNot detectedDetected/IndeterminateTotal
MassARRAYNot detected581775
Detected/Inconclusive2102104
Total60119179
B) Statistical analysis of MassARRAY performance
Characteristic%Confidence interval (%)
Sensitivity96.6788.47–99.59
Specificity85.7178.12–91.45
Accuracy89.3983.92–93.49
Invalid rate3.8

From this primary comparison, the MassARRAY SARS-CoV-2 Panel had an accuracy of 89.39% when compared to our standard of care.

19/186 (10.2%) that results were found to be discordant were assessed by a different assay except one where no eluate or sample was available for repeat testing (Table 5). 14 out of 18 agreed with the MassARRAY, and the performance was recalculated (see Table 6). The overall accuracy was 97.21% after the discordance agreement.

Table 5.

Discordant testing

SpecimenTIB MOLBIOLMassARRAYLDT
1IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
2IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
3IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
4IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
5IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
6IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
7IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
8IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
9IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
10IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
11IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
12IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
13IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
14IndeterminateNot detectedNot detected
15IndeterminateNot detectedIndeterminate (ct 38.5)
16IndeterminateNot detectedIndeterminate (ct 37.7)
17IndeterminateNot detectedIndeterminate (ct 40)
18Not detectedInconclusiveDetected (ct 31.73)
19Not detectedDetectedNo specimen for retest
Table 6.

MassARRAY performance after discordance agreement

Characteristic%Confidence interval (%)
Sensitivity97.3090.58–99.67
Specificity97.1491.88–99.41
Accuracy97.2193.60–99.09

Discussion

While vaccines for COVID-19 have become available, efficient large-scale testing is still essential as the population works toward herd immunity and as virus variants emerge. New testing methods continue to be developed to meet these demands. Our study demonstrates that the MS-based MassARRAY System is an accurate and highly sensitive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Following the discordant agreement with an alternative RT-PCR test, the MassARRAY performance was found to have sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, exceeding 97%, making it a viable diagnostic tool for the laboratory. Previous reports have shown that the MassARRAY system is reliable, with an earlier study of 44 samples finding complete concordance between the MS method and traditional “gold-standard” RT-PCR [12]. Another study of 168 samples [13] concluded MassARRAY to be superior in sensitivity and capable of detecting false negatives reported by RT-PCR. Rybicka et al. found the MassARRAY to be particularly advantageous when detecting patients of low viral load who were likely infected by SARS-CoV-2 and could potentially be infectious to others. It can be noted that laboratories vary in their choice of RT-PCR target genes [12, 13], with different methods targeting combinations of N genes, E gene, and regions of ORF1 and ORF1ab. Discrepancies between RT-PCR results may be attributed in some part to variations in target genes.

Practical benefits of the MassARRAY system include being low-cost to run and requiring no fluorescent reagents. As such, it can be relied upon as an alternative testing method during periods of increased demand or when real-time RT-PCR reagent supply chains, in particular fluorescent reagents, are disrupted. When evaluating different COVID-19 assays, special consideration should be given to the specificity of the test before implementation to limit the number of specimens requiring retesting. This is particularly important when laboratories experience disruption in reagent supply. MassARRAY can achieve a high throughput of approximately 3,000 samples/day [14] and has the added benefit of integrated data analysis software. The system has also been found to accurately detect SARS-CoV-2 from saliva samples [15] which can be collected rapidly and conveniently from large populations.

However, there are some limitations in using the MassARRAY system in the laboratory. The seven-hour run time far exceeds the two-hour run time of our standard real-time RT-PCR assay. Additionally, while the MassARRAY workflow is partially automated, it still requires multiple preparation steps and more hands-on time than our automated laboratory assay. Ultimately, our laboratory was able to increase real-time RT-PCR throughput to 10,000 samples/day, negotiating the need to rely on the MassARRAY system. Nevertheless, this MS-based technology is an accurate means of COVID-19 screening that can supplement the standard testing should the need arise for alternative testing methods. It can be a valuable method for some laboratories when the turn-around time for COVID-19 testing is not critical.

Our study has some limitations. Although it included large and random sampling, it would have benefited from collecting additional clinical information, including symptomatic/asymptomatic status, recent COVID-19 infection, and exposure history, such that MassARRAY performance could be assessed relating to these factors, especially with the discordance results. From our experience at the beginning of this pandemic, indeterminant real-time RT-PCR results often corresponded to asymptomatic, early or resolved infections. Furthermore, suspected patients could have been followed up to determine disease progression. Another limitation of our study is that only one specimen type (nasopharyngeal swab) was evaluated. Lastly, the unavailability of enough specimen for retesting the invalid results, limit further investigation to better understand the reason for those results.

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the MassARRAY panel can be used as an accurate method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. It is useful as a supplemental testing or an alternate method when experiencing a supply chain shortage. It can also be used in non-acute hospital laboratories when the turn-around time is not critical.

Contributions

Conceptualization: F AlMutawa, A Cabrera and J Delport; Data curation: F Chen, A Cabrera; Investigation: F Chen; Methodology: F AlMutawa and A Cabrera; Writing-original draft: F AlMutawa and A Cabrera; Writing-review & editing: F AlMutawa, A Cabrera and J Delport.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Data sharing

Available upon request.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.

    WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. https://covid19.who.int [Accessed June 2022].

  • 2.

    Kung S, Doppen M, Black M, Braithwaite I, Kearns C, Weatherall M, et al. Underestimation of COVID-19 mortality during the pandemic. ERJ open Res 2021 Jan 1;7(1).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Chazal N. (2021). Coronavirus, the king who wanted more than a crown: from common to the highly pathogenic SARS-CoV-2, is the key in the accessory genes? Front Microbiol, 12, 682603. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/10.3389/fmicb.2021.682603.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Huang P, Wang H, Cao Z, Jin H, Chi H, Zhao J, et al. A rapid and specific assay for the detection of MERS-CoV. Front Microbiol 2018 May 29;9:1101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01101. PMID: 29896174; PMCID: PMC5987675.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Cui J, Li F, Shi ZL. Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 2019 Mar;17(3):181192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0118-9. PMID: 30531947; PMCID: PMC7097006.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Fowler VL, Armson B, Gonzales JL, Wise EL, Howson ELA, Vincent-Mistiaen Z, et al. A highly effective reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Infect 2021 Jan;82(1):117125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.10.039. Epub 2020 Nov 30. PMID: 33271166; PMCID: PMC7703389.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rodriguez-Manzano J, Malpartida-Cardenas K, Moser N, Pennisi I, Cavuto M, Miglietta L, et al. Handheld point-of-care system for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 extracted RNA in under 20 min. ACS Cent Sci 2021 Feb 24;7(2):307317. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.0c01288. Epub 2021 Jan 13. PMID: 33649735; PMCID: PMC7839415.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Balboni A, Gallina L, Palladini A, Prosperi S, Battilani M. A real-time PCR assay for bat SARS-like coronavirus detection and its application to Italian greater horseshoe bat faecal sample surveys. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:989514. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/989514. Epub 2011 Nov 22. PMID: 22654650; PMCID: PMC3353321.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Croxatto A, Prod'hom G, Greub G. Applications of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in clinical diagnostic microbiology. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2012 Mar;36(2):380407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00298.x. Epub 2011 Aug 22. PMID: 22092265.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Schubert S, Kostrzewa M. MALDI-TOF MS in the microbiology laboratory: current trends. Curr Issues Mol Biol 2017;23:1720. https://doi.org/10.21775/cimb.023.017. Epub 2017 May 15. PMID: 28504240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill 2020 Jan;25(3):2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. Erratum in: Euro Surveill. 2020 Apr;25(14): Erratum in: Euro Surveill. 2020 Jul;25(30): Erratum in: Euro Surveill. 2021 Feb;26(5): PMID: 31992387; PMCID: PMC6988269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wandernoth P, Kriegsmann K, Groh-Mohanu C, Daeumer M, Gohl P, Harzer O, et al. Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by mass spectrometry. Viruses 2020 Aug 4;12(8):849. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12080849. PMID: 32759673; PMCID: PMC7472307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Rybicka M, Miłosz E, Bielawski KP. Superiority of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry over real-time PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. Viruses 2021 Apr 22;13(5):730. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13050730. PMID: 33922195; PMCID: PMC8145549.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Agena Bioscience (2020). The SARS-CoV-2 Panel (RUO): a high-throughput and robust assay with a low limit of detection for use on the MassARRAY® System. agenabio.com.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Hernandez MM, Banu R, Shrestha P, Patel A, Chen F, Cao L, et al. RT-PCR/MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens. J Med Virol 2021 Sep;93(9):54815486. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27069. Epub 2021 May 19. PMID: 33963565; PMCID: PMC8242556.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1.

    WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. https://covid19.who.int [Accessed June 2022].

  • 2.

    Kung S, Doppen M, Black M, Braithwaite I, Kearns C, Weatherall M, et al. Underestimation of COVID-19 mortality during the pandemic. ERJ open Res 2021 Jan 1;7(1).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Chazal N. (2021). Coronavirus, the king who wanted more than a crown: from common to the highly pathogenic SARS-CoV-2, is the key in the accessory genes? Front Microbiol, 12, 682603. https://doi-org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/10.3389/fmicb.2021.682603.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Huang P, Wang H, Cao Z, Jin H, Chi H, Zhao J, et al. A rapid and specific assay for the detection of MERS-CoV. Front Microbiol 2018 May 29;9:1101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01101. PMID: 29896174; PMCID: PMC5987675.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Cui J, Li F, Shi ZL. Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 2019 Mar;17(3):181192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0118-9. PMID: 30531947; PMCID: PMC7097006.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Fowler VL, Armson B, Gonzales JL, Wise EL, Howson ELA, Vincent-Mistiaen Z, et al. A highly effective reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Infect 2021 Jan;82(1):117125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.10.039. Epub 2020 Nov 30. PMID: 33271166; PMCID: PMC7703389.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rodriguez-Manzano J, Malpartida-Cardenas K, Moser N, Pennisi I, Cavuto M, Miglietta L, et al. Handheld point-of-care system for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 extracted RNA in under 20 min. ACS Cent Sci 2021 Feb 24;7(2):307317. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.0c01288. Epub 2021 Jan 13. PMID: 33649735; PMCID: PMC7839415.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Balboni A, Gallina L, Palladini A, Prosperi S, Battilani M. A real-time PCR assay for bat SARS-like coronavirus detection and its application to Italian greater horseshoe bat faecal sample surveys. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:989514. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/989514. Epub 2011 Nov 22. PMID: 22654650; PMCID: PMC3353321.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Croxatto A, Prod'hom G, Greub G. Applications of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in clinical diagnostic microbiology. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2012 Mar;36(2):380407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00298.x. Epub 2011 Aug 22. PMID: 22092265.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Schubert S, Kostrzewa M. MALDI-TOF MS in the microbiology laboratory: current trends. Curr Issues Mol Biol 2017;23:1720. https://doi.org/10.21775/cimb.023.017. Epub 2017 May 15. PMID: 28504240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill 2020 Jan;25(3):2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. Erratum in: Euro Surveill. 2020 Apr;25(14): Erratum in: Euro Surveill. 2020 Jul;25(30): Erratum in: Euro Surveill. 2021 Feb;26(5): PMID: 31992387; PMCID: PMC6988269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wandernoth P, Kriegsmann K, Groh-Mohanu C, Daeumer M, Gohl P, Harzer O, et al. Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by mass spectrometry. Viruses 2020 Aug 4;12(8):849. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12080849. PMID: 32759673; PMCID: PMC7472307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Rybicka M, Miłosz E, Bielawski KP. Superiority of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry over real-time PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. Viruses 2021 Apr 22;13(5):730. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13050730. PMID: 33922195; PMCID: PMC8145549.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Agena Bioscience (2020). The SARS-CoV-2 Panel (RUO): a high-throughput and robust assay with a low limit of detection for use on the MassARRAY® System. agenabio.com.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Hernandez MM, Banu R, Shrestha P, Patel A, Chen F, Cao L, et al. RT-PCR/MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva specimens. J Med Virol 2021 Sep;93(9):54815486. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27069. Epub 2021 May 19. PMID: 33963565; PMCID: PMC8242556.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Dunay, Ildiko Rita, Prof. Dr. Pharm, Dr. rer. nat., University of Magdeburg, Germany

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Heimesaat, Markus M., Prof. Dr. med., Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Germany

Editorial Board

  • Berit Bangoura, Dr. DVM. PhD,  University of Wyoming, USA
  • Stefan Bereswill, Prof. Dr. rer. nat., Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Germany
  • Dunja Bruder, Prof. Dr. rer. nat., University of Magdeburg, Germany
  • Jan Buer, Prof. Dr. med., University of Duisburg, Germany
  • Edit Buzas, Prof. Dr. med., Semmelweis University, Hungary
  • Renato Damatta, Prof. PhD, UENF, Brazil
  • Maria Deli, MD, PhD, DSc, Biological Research Center, HAS, Hungary
  • Olgica Djurković-Djaković, Prof. Phd, University of Belgrade, Serbia
  • Jean-Dennis Docquier, Prof. Dr. med., University of Siena, Italy
  • Zsuzsanna Fabry, Prof. Phd, University of Washington, USA
  • Ralf Ignatius, Prof. Dr. med., Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Germany
  • Achim Kaasch, Prof. Dr. med., Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany
  • Oliver Liesenfeld, Prof. Dr. med., Inflammatix, USA
  • Matyas Sandor, Prof. PhD, University of Wisconsin, USA
  • Ulrich Steinhoff, Prof. PhD, University of Marburg, Germany
  • Michal Toborek, Prof. PhD, University of Miami, USA
  • Susanne A. Wolf, PhD, MDC-Berlin, Germany

 

Dr. Dunay, Ildiko Rita
Magdeburg, Germany
E-mail: ildiko.dunay@med.ovgu.de

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • PubMed Central
  • Scopus
  • ESCI
  • CABI
  • CABELLS Journalytics

 

2023  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
674
Journal Impact Factor 3.3
Rank by Impact Factor

Q2

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
3.1
5 Year
Impact Factor
3.2
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
15
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.601
Scimago Quartile Score Microbiology (medical) (Q2)
Microbiology (Q3)
Immunology and Allergy (Q3)
Immunology (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
5.0
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Microbiology (medical) Q2
Scopus
SNIP
0.832

 

European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 600 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2011
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-509X (Print)
ISSN 2062-8633 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Feb 2024 0 173 20
Mar 2024 0 63 12
Apr 2024 0 61 14
May 2024 0 33 9
Jun 2024 0 81 23
Jul 2024 0 23 3
Aug 2024 0 0 0