Gene families are growing rapidly, but standard methods for inferring phylogenies do not scale to alignments with over 10,000 sequences. We present FastTree, a method for constructing large phylogenies and for estimating their reliability. Instead of storing a distance matrix, FastTree stores sequence profiles of internal nodes in the tree. FastTree uses these profiles to implement neighbor-joining and uses heuristics to quickly identify candidate joins. FastTree then uses nearest-neighbor interchanges to reduce the length of the tree. For an alignment with N sequences, L sites, and a different characters, a distance matrix requires O(N^2) space and O(N^2 L) time, but FastTree requires just O( NLa + N sqrt(N) ) memory and O( N sqrt(N) log(N) L a ) time. To estimate the tree's reliability, FastTree uses local bootstrapping, which gives another 100-fold speedup over a distance matrix. For example, FastTree computed a tree and support values for 158,022 distinct 16S ribosomal RNAs in 17 hours and 2.4 gigabytes of memory. Just computing pairwise Jukes-Cantor distances and storing them, without inferring a tree or bootstrapping, would require 17 hours and 50 gigabytes of memory. In simulations, FastTree was slightly more accurate than neighbor joining, BIONJ, or FastME; on genuine alignments, FastTree's topologies had higher likelihoods. FastTree is available at http://microbesonline.org/fasttree.

/pdf/fast-tree-computing-large-minimum-evolution-trees-with-4grq0gwfpy.pdf

Fast Tree: Computing Large Minimum-Evolution Trees with Profiles instead of a Distance Matrix

Background
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.

Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.

Search methods
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.

Selection criteria
We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).

Data collection and analysis
Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

Main results
Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays.

We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19.

Antigen tests

Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%).

At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing.

Rapid molecular assays

Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.

Authors' conclusions
Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected.

Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice.

Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

/pdf/rapid-point-of-care-antigen-and-molecular-based-tests-for-2a2qjx1fq9.pdf

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread to nearly every corner of the globe, causing societal instability. The resultant coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to fever, sore throat, cough, chest and muscle pain, dyspnoea, confusion, anosmia, ageusia and headache. These can progress to life-threatening respiratory insufficiency, also affecting the heart, kidney, liver and nervous systems. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is often confused with that of influenza and seasonal upper respiratory tract viral infections. Due to available treatment strategies and required containments, rapid diagnosis is mandated. This Review brings clarity to the rapidly growing body of available and in-development diagnostic tests, including nanomaterial-based tools. It serves as a resource guide for scientists, physicians, students and the public at large.

/pdf/diagnostics-for-sars-cov-2-infections-148kfqkzj8.pdf

Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 infections.

COVID-19 diagnosis -A review of current methods.

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic has relied on cautious contact tracing, quarantine, and sterilization protocols while we await a vaccine to be made widely available. Telemedicine or mobile health (mHealth) is well-positioned during this time to reduce potential disease spread and prevent overloading of the healthcare system through at-home COVID-19 screening, diagnosis, and monitoring. With the rise of mass-fabricated electronics for wearable and portable sensors, emerging telemedicine tools have been developed to address shortcomings in COVID-19 diagnostics, monitoring, and management. In this Perspective, we summarize current implementations of mHealth sensors for COVID-19, highlight recent technological advances, and provide an overview on how these tools may be utilized to better control the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emerging Telemedicine Tools for Remote COVID-19 Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Management.

Multiplex reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with nanoparticle-based lateral flow biosensor for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Melioidosis is a common infectious disease in Southeast Asia and Northern Australia. In Hainan, several cases have been reported, but no systematic study has yet been done on the molecular epidemiology profiles of the organism. An investigation of the molecular epidemiology links and population structure of Burkholderia pseudomallei would help to better understand the clonally of the isolates and differences among them. In this study, multilocus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA), and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) were applied to examine the epidemiological relatedness and population structure of 166 B. pseudomallei isolates obtained during 2002-2014 in Hainan, China. Both the MLVA_4 and MLST approaches had high discriminatory power for this population, with diversity indices of 0.9899 and 0.9457, respectively. However, the MLVA_4 assay showed a higher discriminatory power than the MLST approach, and a variable-number tandem repeat (VNTR3 933) found by the MLVA approach was the most useful in discriminating strains from this province. A total of 166 strains yielded 99 MLVA_4 genotypes, of which 34 genotypes were shared by 101 isolates, for a clustering rate of 60.8% (101/166), which suggested that some cases may have a common source. Additionally, 65 isolates showed distinct genotypes, indicating that more than 39.2% (65/166) of melioidosis cases in Hainan had epidemiologically unrelated or sporadic characteristics. The 166 isolates were resolved into 48 STs, of which five STs (ST55, -70, -46, -50, and -58) were here found to be predominant. Phylogenetic analysis of 116 isolates conducted using the eBURST v3 segregated the 48 STs into eight groups with ST50 as predicted founder, and 21 STs were found to be singletons, which suggest that the strains in the Hainan region represent a high diversity of ST clones, indicating that many B. pseudomallei clone groups are endemic to this region. Moreover, ST50 had 5 SLV, 7 DLV, 6 TLV, and 29 satellite STs and formed a radial expansion pattern, suggesting that the melioidosis epidemic in this study was mainly caused by the clonal expansion of ST 50. Phylogenetic analysis on global scale suggests that China's isolates are closely related to isolates from Southeast Asia, particularly from Thailand and Malaysia.

/pdf/molecular-characteristics-of-burkholderia-pseudomallei-43zm0zqwct.pdf

Molecular Characteristics of Burkholderia pseudomallei Collected From Humans in Hainan, China

The ongoing Corona virus disease (COVID-19) outbreak has become a huge global health concern. Here, we reported a novel detection platform based on the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), termed real-time reverse transcription LAMP (rRT-LAMP) and applied it for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-19 rRT-LAMP). rRT-LAMP integrates reverse transcription, LAMP amplification, restriction endonuclease cleavage and real-time fluorescence detection into one-pot reaction, and facilitates the diagnosis of COVID-19 at 64°C for only 35 min. The ORF1ab (opening reading frame 1a/b) and NP (nucleoprotein) genes of SARS-CoV-2 were detected for diagnosing COVID-19. The limit of detection (LoD) of COVID-19 rRT-LAMP assay was 14 copies (for each marker) per vessel, and no positive results were obtained from non-SARS-CoV-2 templates. To demonstrate its feasibility, a total of 33 oropharynx swab samples collected from COVID-19 patients also were diagnosed as SARS-CoV-2 infection using COVID-19 rRT-LAMP protocol. No cross-reactivity was yielded from 41 oropharynx swab samples collected from non-COVID-19 patients. These data suggesting that the COVID-19 rRT-LAMP assay is a potential detection tool for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in clinical, field and disease control laboratories, and will be valuable for controlling the COVID-19 epidemic.

/pdf/a-novel-real-time-reverse-transcription-loop-mediated-2o8alkra98.pdf

A Novel Real-Time Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Detection Platform: Application to Diagnosis of COVID-19.

Two aerobic, Gram-stain-positive, non-motile, non-sporulating coccoid strains, designated ZLJ0423T and ZLJ0321, were isolated from the faeces of Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii). Their optimal temperature, NaCl concentration and pH for growth were 28°C, 0.5% (w/v) NaCl and pH 7.5, respectively. Phylogenetic analysis based on 16S rRNA gene sequences revealed that strains ZLJ0423T and ZLJ0321 were very similar to each other (99.8%) and had a sequence similarity of 97.0% with Georgenia satyanarayanai NBRC 107612T and Georgenia subflava CGMCC 1.12782T. Phylogenomic analysis based on 688 core genes indicated that these strains formed a clade with G. satyanarayanai NBRC 107612T and Georgenia wutianyii Z294. The predominant cellular fatty acids were anteiso-C15:0, anteiso-C15:1A and C16:0. The major menaquinone was MK-8(H4). The cell-wall amino acids consisted of alanine, lysine, glycine and aspartic acid, with lysine as the diagnostic diamino acid. Diphosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylinositol mannosides and two unidentified lipids formed the polar lipid profile. The DNA G + C content of both isolates was 73.9 mol%. The digital DNA-DNA hybridization value between strains ZLJ0423T and ZLJ0321 was 91.2%, but their values with closely related species and other available type strains of the genus Georgenia were lower than the 70% threshold. On the basis of polyphasic taxonomic data, strains ZLJ0423T and ZLJ0321 represent a novel species within the genus Georgenia, for which the name Georgenia faecalis sp. nov. is proposed. The type strain is ZLJ0423T (= CGMCC 1.13681T = JCM 33470T).

Georgenia faecalis sp. nov. isolated from the faeces of Tibetan antelope.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Hai Chen

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Multiplex reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with nanoparticle-based lateral flow biosensor for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Molecular Characteristics of Burkholderia pseudomallei Collected From Humans in Hainan, China

A Novel Real-Time Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Detection Platform: Application to Diagnosis of COVID-19.

Georgenia faecalis sp. nov. isolated from the faeces of Tibetan antelope.