Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is highly contagious and causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the most accurate and reliable molecular assay to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, a rapid increase in test subjects has created a global bottleneck in testing capacity. Given that efficient nucleic acid extraction greatly affects reliable and accurate testing results, we compared three extraction platforms: MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral NA Small Volume kit on MagNA Pure 96 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), careGENE^TM Viral/Pathogen HiFi Nucleic Acid Isolation kit (WELLS BIO Inc., Seoul, Korea) on KingFisher Flex (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rocklin, CA, USA), and SGRespi^TM Pure kit (Seegene Inc., Seoul, Korea) on Maelstrom 9600 (Taiwan Advanced Nanotech Inc., Taoyuan, Taiwan). RNA was extracted from 245 residual respiratory specimens from the different types of samples (i.e., NPS, sputum, and saliva) using three different kits. The 95% limits of detection of median tissue culture infectious dose per milliliter (TCID₅₀/mL) for the MagNA Pure 96, KingFisher Flex, and Maelstrom 9600 were 0.37–3.15 × 10¹, 0.41–3.62 × 10¹, and 0.33–1.98 × 10¹, respectively. The KingFisher Flex platform exhibited 99.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas Maelstrom 9600 exhibited 98.3–100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Bland–Altman analysis revealed a 95.2% concordance between MagNA Pure 96 and KingFisher Flex and 95.4% concordance between MagNA Pure 96 and Maelstrom 9600, indicating that all three platforms provided statistically reliable results. This suggests that two modifying platforms, KingFisher Flex and Maelstrom 9600, are accurate and scalable extraction platforms for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 clinical detection and could help the management of COVID-19 patients.

Single-target rapid antigen tests (RATs) are commonly used to detect highly transmissible respiratory viruses (RVs), such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses. The simultaneous detection of RVs presenting overlapping symptoms is vital in making appropriate decisions about treatment, isolation, and resource utilization; however, few studies have evaluated multiplex RATs for SARS-CoV-2 and other RVs. We assessed the diagnostic performance of multiplex RATs targeting both the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B viruses with the GenBody Influenza/COVID-19 Ag Triple, InstaView COVID-19/Flu Ag Combo (InstaView), STANDARD^TM Q COVID-19 Ag Test, and STANDARD^TM Q Influenza A/B Test kits using 974 nasopharyngeal swab samples. The cycle threshold values obtained from the real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results showed higher sensitivity (72.7–100%) when the values were below, rather than above, the cut-off values. The InstaView kit exhibited significantly higher positivity rates (80.21% for SARS-CoV-2, 61.75% for influenza A, and 46.15% for influenza B) and cut-off values (25.57 for SARS-CoV-2, 21.19 for influenza A, and 22.35 for influenza B) than the other two kits, and was able to detect SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants. Therefore, the InstaView kit is the best choice for routine screening for both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B in local communities.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the third highly pathogenic human coronavirus and is rapidly transmitted by infected individuals regardless of their symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the dearth of skilled healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect samples for early diagnosis, self-collection emerged as a viable alternative. To evaluate the reliability of self-collection, we compared the virus detection rate using 3990 self-collected swabs and HCW-collected swabs, procured from the same individuals and collected immediately after the self-collection. The results of multiplex reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed that the viral load in the HCW-collected swabs was marginally (18.4–28.8 times) higher than that in self-collected swabs. Self-collection showed no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity from HCW-collection (κ = 0.87, McNemar’s test; p = 0.19), indicating a comparable performance. These findings suggest that self-collected swabs are acceptable substitutes for HCW-collected swabs, and that their use improved the specimen screening efficiency and reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minoxidil is the most widely used treatment for hair growth, but has been associated with several side effects. In this study, we investigated the effects of heat-killed Enterococcus faecalis EF-2001 on hair loss prevention and regrowth using human dermal papilla cells and male C57BL/6 mice. To examine the effects of EF-2001, we used minoxidil as the positive control. In the in vitro experiments, EF-2001 treatment (75–500 μg/mL) led to the proliferation of human dermal papilla cells in a concentration-dependent manner. In the in vivo experiment, the topical application of 200 µL EF-2001 on the dorsal surface of C57BL/6 male mice led to hair growth. Changes in hair regrowth were examined by visual comparison and hematoxylin and eosin staining of skin sections. We also determined the expression levels of marker genes (Wnt) and growth factors (fibroblast growth factor, insulin growth factor 1, and vascular endothelial growth factor) in the skin tissues of the back of each mouse using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction. EF-2001 accelerated the progression of hair regrowth in mice and promoted hair-follicle conversion from telogen to anagen, likely by increasing the expression levels of growth factors and marker genes.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is still rapidly spreading as of March 2022. An accurate and rapid molecular diagnosis is essential to determine the exact number of confirmed cases. Currently, the viral transport medium (VTM) required for testing is in short supply due to a sharp increase in the laboratory tests performed, and alternative VTMs are needed to alleviate the shortage. Guanidine thiocyanate-based media reportedly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 and are compatible with quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays, but the compatibility and the viral detection capacity have not been fully validated. To evaluate the guanidine thiocyanate-based Gene Transport Medium (GeneTM) as an alternative VTM, we prepared 39 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 7 SARS-CoV-2-negative samples in GeneTM, eNAT, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The cycle threshold (Ct) values of three SARS-CoV-2 targets (the S, RdRP, and N genes) were analyzed using RT-qPCR testing. The comparison of Ct values from the positive samples showed a high correlation (R²=0.950.96) between GeneTM and eNAT, indicating a comparable viral detection capacity. The delta Ct values of the SARS-CoV-2 genes in each transport medium were maintained for 14 days at cold (4°C) or room (25°C) temperatures, suggesting viral samples were stably preserved in the transport media for 14days. Together, GeneTM is a potential alternative VTM with comparable RT-qPCR performance and stability to those of standard media.

Owing to the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, the capacity of testing systems based on the gold standard real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is limited. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) can substantially contribute to the prevention of community transmission, but their further assessment is required. Here, using 1503 nasopharyngeal swabs, we compared the diagnostic performance of four RAT kits (Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, SD Biosensor Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag Test, Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test, and SG Medical Acrosis COVID-19 Ag Test) to the cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained from rRT-PCR. The precision values, area under the curve values, SARS-CoV-2 variant detection ability, and non-SARS-CoV-2 specificity of all four kits were similar. An assay using the Acrosis kit had a significantly better positive detection rate with a higher recall value and cut-off value than that using the other three RAT kits. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Acrosis kit is an effective tool to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in communities.