No abstract

Background and objectiveThe bacterial profile of saliva is composed of bacteria from different oral surfaces. The objective of this study was to determine whether different diet intake, lifestyle, or socioeconomic status is associated with characteristic bacterial saliva profiles.DesignStimulated saliva samples from 292 participants with low levels of dental caries and periodontitis, enrolled in the Danish Health Examination Survey (DANHES), were analyzed for the presence of approximately 300 bacterial species by means of the Human Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM). Using presence and levels (mean HOMIM-value) of bacterial probes as endpoints, the influence of diet intake, lifestyle, and socioeconomic status on the bacterial saliva profile was analyzed by Mann–Whitney tests with Benjamini–Hochberg's correction for multiple comparisons and principal component analysis.ResultsTargets for 131 different probes were identified in 292 samples, with Streptococcus and Veillonella being the most predominant genera identified. Two bacterial taxa (Streptococcus sobrinus and Eubacterium [11][G-3] brachy) were more associated with smokers than non-smokers (adjusted p-value<0.01). Stratification of the group based on extreme ends of the parameters age, gender, alcohol consumption, body mass index (BMI), and diet intake had no statistical influence on the composition of the bacterial profile of saliva. Conversely, differences in socioeconomic status were reflected by the bacterial profiles of saliva.ConclusionsThe bacterial profile of saliva seems independent of diet intake, but influenced by smoking and maybe socioeconomic status.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (total-Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated fifteen commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild or moderate COVID-19; nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), collected 13-73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO/in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche/Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott/Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai/ELISA-IgM showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.