Background: According to several studies, there is an association between human papillomavirus (HPV) and breast cancer. Therefore, detection and genotyping of HPV seem important. The present study aimed to investigate the presence of HPV DNA in breast tissues by analyzing the L1 gene. Materials and Methods: This case-control study was conducted on 63 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) as the case group and 32 FFPE tissues of fibroadenoma as the control group. HPV DNA was detected using the polymerase chain reaction assay. Positive samples were then subjected to genotyping. All statistical analyses were performed in SPSS version 22.0. Results: The patients' age ranged from 15 to 92 years, with a mean age of 43.54±16.36 years. HPV DNA was detected in 17/95 (17.89%) samples, including 9/32 (28.12%) fibroadenoma samples and 8/63 (12.69%) IDC samples. No significant difference was observed regarding the presence of HPV DNA between the IDC and fibroadenoma tissues (P=0.08). However, a significant difference was found in the detection of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) between the case and control groups (P=0.03). In the case group, 87.5% of the detected viruses (7/8 samples) were HR-HPV, while in the control group, 22.22% of positive samples (2/9 samples) were HR-HPV (P=0.03). Based on the results, HR-HPV and low-risk HPV genotypes were detected in 53% (9/17) and 47% (8/17) of positive samples, respectively. Conclusion: In this study, 12.69% of IDC samples were positive for HPV genomes, and HR-HPV was detected in 87.5% of these samples. The present results suggest the important role of HR-HPV in the development of breast cancer.

No abstract

Background: Fast and precise detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples and subsequent quarantine are two critical factors in preventing virus transmission and distribution through the community. The false-negative result is a major problem in the SARS-CoV-2 detection because of the kind of sample (swab sample), sampling error, and sensitivity of PCR test, which can be reduced by a much more sensitive test such as nested PCR. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the false-negative rate among samples that were negative by a real-time PCR test using RT-nested PCR. Methods: One hundred eighty-four negative samples were included in the study, and nucleic acid was extracted using a commercial kit based on a silica filter column and then subjected to RT-nested PCR using three sets of primers targeting Orf1ab, N, and RdRp regions. Results: Among 184 negative swab samples for SARS-CoV-2, 27 (14.6%) cases were positive for the Orf1ab gene using RT-nested PCR. The samples were tested using N and RdRp primer sets. Also, seven (3.8%) cases were positive for the N gene, and four (2.1%) cases were positive for the RdRp gene. Conclusions: The results indicated that RT-nested PCR could be more sensitive than real-time PCR and reduce the false-negative rate.