The Coronavirus Standards Working Group's roadmap for enhanced population screening

on
featured image

Standards are needed to guarantee that population-scale screening for transmittable representatives is precise and reputable. The COVID-19 pandemic has actually shown the value of well-characterized referral products that make sure a test is fit-for-purpose, of efficiency screening plans that assess lab efficiency, and of info requirements for clear interaction of test outcomes. Standards are an easy, affordable and tested technique to guarantee the efficiency of a trustworthy screening business at the enormous scale and variety required throughout any pandemic.

At the start of the COVID-19 break out, the Coronavirus Standards Working Group (CSWG)– a network of scholastic, federal government and market researchers– was developed to promote for making use of requirements in SARS-CoV-2 screening. Here we explain the CSWG’s cumulative experiences, results and suggestions considering that early2020 We propose that the advancement and dissemination of requirements is an affordable method that can broadly enhance SARS-CoV-2 screening around the world and ought to be focused on as a crucial early action in the general public health action to future pandemics.

Reference products for SARS-CoV-2 screening

Testing procedures the existence of an analyte in a sample, such as the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome within a breathing sample. All measurement outcomes have unpredictability, and well-characterized referral products can put outcomes on a typical scale and examine that unpredictability. This procedure is vital both to examine that tests are fit-for-purpose and to analyze test outcomes throughout research studies (Fig. 1). Referral products can be classified in 4 methods.

Fig. 1: Standards required for the SARS-CoV-2 screening procedure.
figure 1

a— c, Schematic diagram showing the actions in the molecular ( a), antigen ( b) and serological ( c) screening procedure, which can be categorized into pre-analytical (yellow), analytical (green) and post-analytical (blue) phases. Extra test advancement (yellow) is carried out prior to produce. The lower panel explains the series of requirements readily available for confirming test advancement, procedures and outcomes.

‘ Primary referral products’ are designated qualitative and quantitative residential or commercial properties by an acknowledged authority without recommendation to other products. The World Health Organization (WHO; Geneva) Expert Committee on Biological Standardization developed its main International Standards for SARS-CoV-2 screening in December 2020, with these recommendation products utilized to specify the global systems 1, 2 These International Standards can then be utilized to adjust ‘secondary referral products’, which are more consistently utilized throughout test and lab recognition. ‘Natural recommendation products’ are stemmed from natural sources, such as scientific client samples, that have actually been well-characterized utilizing various techniques. Natural products match the intricacy and obstacles of a client sample, they are typically limited in amount and challenging to produce at scale with dependability 3 Natural referral products need to preferably match the viral and antibody titers of last usage cases that can differ throughout the course of infection, amongst people and target populations 4 SARS-CoV-2 tests that were initially verified utilizing hospitalized client samples with high viral titers carried out considerably even worse when utilized to evaluate slightly or asymptomatic people for which couple of offered recommendation products were at first offered 5

During the preliminary phases of the pandemic, labs dealt with a significant obstacle in sourcing natural referral products to examine screening, with client samples likewise required for completing research study and restorative requirements (Fig. 2). Some big labs might utilize developed scientific cooperations to source recommendation client products, numerous other labs dealt with problems sourcing referral client products required to validate tests 6 The collaborated and fair dissemination of recommendation client products throughout the early phases of the pandemic would have not just sped up the release of tests, however likewise offered an early chance to balance test efficiency amongst various labs.

Fig. 2: Schematic diagram highlights essential turning points in the advancement of screening and requirements throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
figure 2

Understanding these turning points can help in getting ready for present and future public health emergency situations.

The quick advancement of ‘artificial recommendation products’ can offer an interim service in the lack of recommendation client products. Artificial referral products, consisting of crafted infections, bacteriophage, artificial SARS-CoV-2 complementary DNA and RNA genomes and pieces, and recombinant proteins, were quickly established following the publication of the SARS-CoV-2 referral genome, allowing the analytical recognition of tests in nations, even prior to the very first reported cases of SARS CoV-2 infection had actually emerged 7 Artificial products might be bad surrogates for examining pre-analytical variables, such as tasting and transportation conditions, that can noticeably affect test efficiency 8; in addition, artificial products might require to be more surged into buffer or unfavorable specimens to contrive a specimen-like matrix.

During the early phases of the pandemic, due to issues about gain access to and scaling of screening (Fig. 2), regulative companies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), at first allowed making use of artificial referral product to verify tests; nevertheless, this was discovered to lead to irregular screening efficiency. Today, these companies need natural recommendation products for recognition and permission or clearance 9 For more analytical recognition, the FDA likewise established a panel of cultured infection referral products that were shown designers who sent tests for emergency situation usage permission (EUA) to examine the limitation of detection10

Molecular screening for SARS-CoV-2 genes

Several molecular tests are utilized to identify the SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome, utilizing techniques such as reverse transcription– quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and digital PCR, loop-mediated isothermal amplification, next-generation sequencing and other nucleic amplification techniques11 Molecular tests generally utilize respiratory-tract samples that are especially prone to pre-analytical variables.

Numerous artificial and natural recommendation products have actually been established to validate molecular screening procedures. Offered the level of sensitivity of molecular tests, labs should make sure to utilize unfavorable controls to alleviate false-positive test results developing from contamination by artificial SARS-CoV-2 reagents or previous tests that lead to false-positive medical outcomes12 At early phases of the pandemic, the United States Centers for Disease Control dispersed RT-qPCR tests that were polluted with target design templates, needing brand-new test sets to be established and released that led to hold-ups throughout vital early phases of the pandemic.

Although molecular tests have the possible to determine viral abundance, they should initially utilize recommendation products to assess their quantitative efficiency, consisting of the quantitative limitation of detection, linearity and unpredictability. The RT-qPCR biking limit rating can be utilized to approximate viral abundance, this abundance can differ considerably in between instruments and labs, and harmonization to shared-in-common recommendation products is required for quantitative contrasts of RT-qPCR outcomes 1; in lack of this, viral load can not be thought about in scientific stratification and care

Reference products need to likewise be routinely upgraded to show the variety of SARS-CoV-2 variations distributing within a population. Brand-new hereditary variations can hinder RT-qPCR guide or probe binding and lead to false-negative screening outcomes. Multiplex screening for a number of gene targets can reduce the effect of a single variation, probes and guides need continuous confirmation to guarantee the ongoing credibility of a molecular test, and the FDA consistently keeps track of the forecasted effect of variations on the efficiency of EUA licensed tests13

Antigen screening for SARS-CoV-2 proteins

Antigen tests utilize lateral-flow or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to straight spot the existence of viral proteins and are usually less delicate than molecular tests, spotting SARS-CoV-2 throughout a narrower window throughout the viral contagious course (although duplicated serial screening might alleviate this lower level of sensitivity)14 Antigen tests are low-cost to produce, can be utilized outside of a scientific lab, and can quickly return outcomes. These commonly released tests are unquestionably beneficial however the abnormality of reporting of outcomes has actually produced a blind area in public health understanding of illness frequency.

Many labs reported that the efficiency of antigen tests varied significantly from the producers’ statements, and independent recognition with recommendation products was required to verify test efficiency15 Antigen tests can be assessed utilizing suspended infections, however their efficiency is more generally determined by contrast to arise from formerly licensed RT-qPCR tests 9 Relying on assessment by favorable contract to a comparator test can be troublesome, as it can propagate mistakes, distinctions or constraints that are present in the benchmark RT-qPCR approach.

Antigen tests have actually been promoted as a feasible technique to recognize population-scale screening; nevertheless, this proposition stays questionable14 An antigen test extensively utilized in a pilot program to assess whether population-scale screening might suppress rates of infection in Liverpool, UK, was slammed for bad level of sensitivity and discovered to miss out on practically half of the people who otherwise evaluated favorable utilizing RT-qPCR16 The field efficiency of this antigen test was noticeably lower than the producer’s statement. This shows not just the requirement for independent test recognition with suitable recommendation products to comprehend constraints, however likewise the obstacle of assessing the efficiency of tests carried out by inexperienced workers beyond labs, where extra and varied variables can affect efficiency.

Serology screening for a COVID-19 immune reaction

The existence of antibodies in a person’s blood that are reactive to SARS-CoV-2 proteins can be spotted by serology tests, which can determine the avidity, period and structure of various reactive antibody isotypes generated by previous infection or vaccination. Serology assays need to adjust utilizing recommendation products for contrast of antibody measurements in between people, throughout time, and in reaction to various variations.

Reference products for COVID-19 serology tests are usually originated from convalescent client serum. The WHO International Standard, ready and provided by United States National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), makes up a swimming pool of convalescent plasma from recuperated COVID-19 clients, with plasma from healthy donors gathered prior to the pandemic functioning as an unfavorable control 2 The WHO appointed an approximate system to the recommendation products to develop the worldwide systems for reducing the effects of antibodies (for instance, worldwide systems (IU) ml— 1) and binding assays (for instance, binding antibody systems (BAU) ml— 1). Traceability to these global systems can standardize quantitative serology measurements required for contrasts of scientific trial results for vaccines, specify agreement antibody titer limits, and procedure associates of defense versus COVID-19(ref. 17).

Standardization for serological screening likewise underpins reproducible research study in public health and the advancement of vaccines and therapies. Massive research studies have actually utilized serology screening to comprehend the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through populations, along with the effect of vaccination on this transmission. Without standardizing these serology tests, contrast amongst datasets and populations can be incorrect, leading to a lost chance for research study that can be utilized in additional work. Standardization of essential research study approaches, such as the cell-based assays utilized to determine reducing the effects of antibodies, would enhance the analysis, reproducibility and energy of research study outcomes.

Proficiency screening plans balance screening throughout labs

Proficiency research studies (or external quality evaluation research studies) share samples amongst getting involved labs for screening, the outcomes of which are a basis of lab examination and contrast. Efficiency screening assesses the efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 screening in specific labs and throughout a population of labs.

Given the scale and variety of COVID-19 screening, proficiency-testing plans are required to assess field efficiency of tests following preliminary recognition for regulative approval and to balance outcomes amongst labs with various abilities. Various efficiency research studies were gone for early phases of the pandemic for both genome detection and serology screening, with outcomes shared extensively amongst labs and released in the clinical literature18 This was crucial as lots of labs were recently developed or re-purposed for COVID-19 screening with little previous scientific experience, and lots of SARS CoV-2 tests were offered faster regulative approval (for instance, EUAs) with little showed efficiency in real-world settings.

The seriousness and unpredictability of the pandemic needed scholastic, federal government and industrial companies to presume brand-new functions, comply and pool resources to construct screening capability. This coordination has actually been thought about crucial to the success of pandemic actions 6 Federal government and regulative companies had the ability to utilize referral labs to establish requirements, assess tests and distribute finest practices. Organizations, such as the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics (FIND)19, separately assessed test efficiency with interim recommendation products to notify screening finest practices. The adoption of worldwide requirements by local companies is essential to develop efficiency tests that promote traceability of secondary recommendation products and extensive harmonization of screening.

The significance of details requirements

Information requirements are design templates and standards for representation of test efficiency, procedure and approach description, and results. They guarantee that constant, transparent and balanced terms is utilized to plainly interact outcomes that can be regularly analyzed20 An info requirement for reporting SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assays is the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) standards, which offer a list for the disclosure of all reagents, series and approaches essential for other labs to recreate techniques and outcomes21

Information requirements are likewise required to make sure that next-generation sequencing datasets, which can be big and complicated, are standardized and allow subsequent querying and analysis. More than 13 million SARS-CoV-2 genome series have actually been sent to databases, such as Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID)22 The project of constant metadata to these genome series helps with information combination, ease of access and the re-use of information for informative analysis in future research studies17 The classification utilized to explain various SARS-CoV-2 stress has actually likewise been standardized to combine calling schemas and prevent the preconception of calling versions according to origin.

Information requirements are likewise required to supply unambiguous descriptions of test efficiency that can be compared amongst labs and individually validated20 Makers of SARS-CoV-2 tests frequently utilized secondary recommendation products without traceability to a main referral that can be hard to individually confirm. Lots of metrics, such as level of sensitivity and uniqueness, are not repaired test residential or commercial properties and require to be thought about in the context of the medical samples or secondary recommendation product utilized23 As an outcome, contrasts of maker statements of test efficiency have frequently diverged significantly from independent real-world examinations.

Global security of SARS-CoV-2 versions

Novel SARS-CoV-2 variations can affect the physical fitness of the infection, permitting the infection to spread out more quickly, trigger more extreme illness or leave the body’s natural or vaccine-induced immune reaction24 Genomic security has actually shown beneficial in keeping an eye on the development and blood circulation of versions of issue and notifying public health action. Genomic monitoring will likely end up being a recognized function of worldwide screening, with a requirement to keep an eye on unique, seasonal or resistant stress.

Accordingly, there is a pushing requirement to establish recommendation products and bioinformatic requirements to guarantee the quality and comparability of outcomes throughout the environment. This consists of the collection of referral products for various alternative pressures in biorepositories25 The analysis and change of genomic information to actionable details is intricate and should be balanced to guarantee interoperability and finest practice throughout the monitoring network17 Steady versioning, information freezes and workflow management tools can standardize bioinformatic procedures, information outputs and referral files. Recommendation genomic datasets can likewise be utilized in bioinformatic efficiency plans to check the capability of genomic security networks to find unique versions.

In addition to establishing recommendation products and leading harmonization efforts, worldwide companies such as the WHO and public health non-profits such as FIND likewise supplied know-how and assistance to nations that might lack their own recognized regulative or requirements companies. Worldwide dissemination of recommendation products is required to support the execution of screening in low- and middle-income nations, where there is frequently higher reliance on point-of-care tests carried out under heterogeneous conditions. The essential products for decentralized production of artificial ‘open source’ secondary recommendation products can be supplied by plasmid repositories and dispersed under open-source terms to empower local centers to establish their own secondary referral products to verify regional screening workflows26 International imbalances in vaccination and screening have actually added to an international variation in the effect of COVID-19, and requirements have an essential function in reducing these imbalances and guaranteeing that screening is carried out worldwide.

Conclusions

The standardization of SARS-CoV-2 screening stays a continuous top priority and belongs to the normalization of epidemic avoidance and control. SARS-CoV-2 screening will likely stay a function of public health, where it will be utilized to upgrade vaccine formula, in action to seasonal break outs, to support susceptible populations, or for global travel. This worldwide screening needs to be adjusted and benchmarked with requirements to balance efficiency and results, and those requirements should be kept as unique SARS-CoV-2 versions emerge.

An independent evaluation of the procedures by which the FDA licenses tests in the pandemic caused a suggestion to develop a structure for recognition of test efficiency in preparation for a public health emergency situation 6 An essential finding of the evaluation discovered a “restricted understanding in the test designer neighborhood on how to properly verify a diagnostic test” and advised “establishing a structure for how to perform recognition of diagnostic tests for emerging pathogens in the setting of a stated public health emergency situation”. This structure needs to consist of an independent ability to establish and release recommendation products, such as medical samples that are required for test recognition and much better advancement and implementation of traceable recommendation products. Throughout the pandemic, the CSWG contributed a number of these abilities and suggests this proficiency and experience be institutionalised as part of pandemic readiness (see Supplementary Note 2).

Numerous pathogens of interest in epidemic possible and couple of efficient countermeasures have actually been determined27 The threats of a pandemic postured by increasing urbanization, international travel and connection, and lab research study have actually additional increased these issues28 Security screening is main to readiness strategies that intend to include pathogens of issue, and need to be supported by requirements that guarantee trustworthy, constant and credible detection29,30 A standing group is required to promote for requirements in the pandemic readiness strategies (Supplementary Note 2). The majority of the suggestions for requirements for SARS-CoV-2 are generalizable and might likewise take advantage of screening for other pathogens, such as influenza, that are presently kept an eye on for seasonal variations. These propositions can likewise be reached establish requirements for viral break outs in farming and animals populations, which function as tanks for SARS-CoV-2 and other infections that go through zoonotic transfer.

The WHO has actually just recently stated the introduction of the monkeypox break out a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. This break out has comparable requirements requires to SARS-CoV-2. It must not leave notification that this recognized pathogen has actually ended up being a public health emergency situation in spite of the schedule of diagnostics and healing methods. This shows that having biomedical facilities in location, while essential, is inadequate to stem an emergency situation in lack of a robust public health reaction. Developing a standing body to guarantee a nimble and precise action to fulfill requirements is just the start of the journey towards a more methodical factor to consider of action to emerging contagious illness.

The public is the supreme recipient of much better requirements. Standards make sure that clients will get constant and trusted outcomes that notify their treatment, no matter how and where they are checked. Standards can supply a reasonable examination of test efficiency, which might otherwise be thought about secondary to cost and benefit when picking a test. Throughout the pandemic, many federal governments granted agreements to the makers of tests that were consequently revealed to carry out inadequately when individually verified. Previous research study has actually shown that requirements are an economical service to enhance screening and health results that eventually benefit the more comprehensive economy.

The pandemic has actually focused media, federal government and neighborhood attention on the significance of screening. While substantial resources have actually been invested in brand-new screening approaches, reasonably less resources have actually been invested in the advancement of requirements, in spite of their tested efficiency. There is a chance to guarantee that the brand-new prevalent gratitude of screening in public health is accompanied by a matched gratitude of requirements. Appropriately, we require restored factor to consider and financial investment to be paid for to requirements, commensurate with the tactical, significant and impactful advantages. Standards are an easy and tested technique to ensure a robust and efficient screening business at the enormous scale and variety that we have actually seen throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

  1. WHO/BS.20202402 Collaborative Study for the Establishment of a WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA(WHO, 2020).

  2. Kristiansen, P. A. et al. Lancet397, 1347–1348(2021).

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  3. Bossuyt, P. M. J. Clin. Epidemiol.126, 172–176(2020).

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  4. Woloshin, S., Patel, N. & & Kesselheim, A. S. N. Engl. J. Med.383, e38(2020).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takahashi, S., Greenhouse, B. & & Rodríguez-Barraquer, I. J. Infect. Dis.222, 1772–1775(2020).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Tests: Independent Assessment of the FDA’s Response(FDA, accessed October 2022); https://go.nature.com/3fHiMwy

  7. Corman, V. M. et al. Euro Surveill.25, 2000045 (2020).

    PubMed Central Google Scholar

  8. Lippi, G., Simundic, A. M. & & Plebani, M. Clin. Chem. Laboratory. Medication.58, 1070–1076(2020).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mitchell, S. L. et al. J. Clin. Microbiol.58, e00796–20(2020).

    CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  10. SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data(FDA, accessed October 2022); https://go.nature.com/3eob5em

  11. Esbin, M. N. et al. RNA26, 771–783(2020).

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  12. Huggett, J. F. et al. Clin. Chem.66, 1369–1372(2020).

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  13. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Mutations: Impact on COVID-19 Tests(FDA, accessed October 2022); https://go.nature.com/3eicXFG

  14. Mina, M. J., Parker, R. & & Larremore, D. B. N. Engl. J. Med.383, e120(2020).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Fitzpatrick, M. C., Pandey, A., Wells, C. R., Sah, P. & & Galvani, A. P. Lancet397, 24–25(2021).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Wise, J. BMJ371, m4848(2020).

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Griffiths, E. J. et al. Gigascience11, giac003(2022).

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  18. Edson, D. C., Casey, D. L., Harmer, S. E. & & Downes, F. P. Am. J. Clin. Pathol.154, 475–478(2020).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  19. FIND Evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 Assays(FIND, accessed October 2022); https://go.nature.com/3ysnB3D

  20. Cohen, J. F. et al. BMJ Open 6, e012799(2016).

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  21. Bustin, S. A. et al. Clin. Chem.55, 611–622(2009).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Elbe, S. & & Buckland-Merrett, G. Glob. Chall. 1, 33–46(2017).

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  23. Irwig, L., Bossuyt, P., Glasziou, P., Gatsonis, C. & & Lijmer, J. BMJ324, 669–671(2002).

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  24. Krause, P. R. et al. N. Engl. J. Med.385, 179–186(2021).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  25. West, R. & & Gronvall, G. K. Nat. Biotechnol.38, 1021 (2020).

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Kahl, L. et al. Nat. Biotechnol.36, 923–927(2018).

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  27. Prioritizing Diseases for Research and Development in Emergency Contexts(WHO, accessed October 2022); https://go.nature.com/3Hx7R0J

  28. Silver, A. BMJ377, o954(2022).

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Preparing for a Pandemic(ISO, accessed October 2022); https://go.nature.com/3CIytfX

  30. Global Genomic Surveillance Strategy for Pathogens with Pandemic and Epidemic Potential, 2022—2032(WHO, 2022).

Download recommendations

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to all those who took part in the CSWG. This roadmap is our cumulative achievement. This work was partially economically supported by Slovenian Research Agency (agreement no. P4-0165), and by the DOE Office of Science through the National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory, a consortium of DOE nationwide labs concentrated on action to COVID-19, with financing offered by the Coronavirus CARES Act. Viewpoints in this file are those of the authors and do not always represent the main position or policies of noted associated companies. Particularly, the manuscript does not represent the main position or policies of United States National Institute of Standards and Technology or the United States Department of Commerce. Particular industrial devices, instruments and products are determined to define speculative treatments as entirely as possible. In these cases, such recognition neither suggests a suggestion or recommendation by authors or associated companies, nor indicates that any of the products, instruments or devices recognized are always the very best readily available for the function.

Author info

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Tim Mercer

  2. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, UK

    Neil Almond && Mark Page

  3. London Biofoundry, Imperial College Translation and Innovation Hub, London, UK

    Michael A. Crone && Paul Freemont

  4. Section of Structural and Synthetic Biology, Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Michael A. Crone && Paul Freemont

  5. UK Dementia Research Institute Centre for Care Research and Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Michael A. Crone && Paul Freemont

  6. Biosecurity and Public Health, Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Almos, NM, USA

    Patrick S. G. Chain, Alina Deshpande && Po-E Li

  7. Bio-techne, Inc, Austin, TX, USA

    Deepa Eveleigh

  8. Western University of Health Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Pomona, CA, USA

    Sebastien Fuchs

  9. LGC Clinical Diagnostics, Milford, MA, USA

    Russell Garlick

  10. National Measurement Laboratory, LGC, Teddington, UK

    Jim Huggett && Denise M. O’Sullivan

  11. School of Biosciences and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

    Jim Huggett && Denise M. O’Sullivan

  12. INSTAND e.V. Society for Promoting Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories, Duesseldorf, Germany

    Martin Kammel && Heinz Zeichhardt

  13. GBD Gesellschaft fuer Biotechnologische Diagnostik mbH, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Kammel && Heinz Zeichhardt

  14. Department of Biotechnology and Systems Biology, National Institute of Biology, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Mojca Milavec

  15. Quest Diagnostic Infectious Disease, San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA

    Elizabeth M. Marlowe

  16. Biodesix Inc, Boulder, CO, USA

    Gary A. Pestano

  17. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Rheumatology, Inflammation and Immunity, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Sara Suliman

  18. Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, Division of Experimental Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Sara Suliman

  19. Ginkgo Bioworks, Boston, MA, USA

    Birgitte Simen

  20. SPARK, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    John J. Sninsky && Lynne Sopchak

  21. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Cristina M. Tato

  22. Biomolecular Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

    Peter M. Vallone

  23. CellCarta, Zwijnaarde, Belgium

    Jo Vandesompele

  24. Human Rights Center, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Thomas J. White

  25. IQVD GmbH, Institut fuer Qualitaetssicherung in der Virusdiagnostik, Berlin, Germany

    Heinz Zeichhardt

  26. Departments of Pathology and Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Marc Salit

  27. Joint Initiative for Metrology in Biology, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Marc Salit

  28. MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA

    Marc Salit

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Salit

Ethics statements

Competing interests

R.G. is a staff member and investor of LGC Clinical Diagnostics. G.A.P. is a staff member and investor in Biodesix. B.B.S is a staff member of, and has actually gotten stock and RSU grants from, Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. J.V. owns stock in and is CSO at InActiv Blue bv. T.J.W. is an expert for Biodesix. M.S. is an investor in Viridae, Inc.

Peer evaluation

Peer evaluation info

Nature Biotechnology thanks Fiona Hyland and the other, confidential, customer( s) for their contribution to the peer evaluation of this work.

Supplementary details

About this short article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this short article

Mercer, T., Almond, N., Crone, M.A. et al. The Coronavirus Standards Working Group’s roadmap for enhanced population screening. Nat Biotechnol(2022). https://doi.org/101038/ s41587-022-01538 -1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/101038/ s41587-022-01538 -1

Read More

http://covid19globalcases.com/the-coronavirus-standards-working-groups-roadmap-for-enhanced-population-screening/

Comments

Post a Comment