13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      What makes a foodborne virus: comparison between coronaviruses with human noroviruses

      review-article
      , ,
      Current Opinion in Food Science
      Elsevier Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In order to answer the question whether coronaviruses (CoVs) can be transmitted via foods, this review made a comparison between CoVs with the most recognized foodborne virus, human noroviruses (NoVs). As a result, although CoVs indeed have shown the possibilities to remain infectious on foods and/or food packaging materials long enough (from several days to several weeks) to potentially cause transmission, they seem to be less persistent than NoVs towards common disinfection practices with alcohols, chlorine and ultraviolet (UV). More importantly, the chance of foodborne transmission of CoVs is considered low as CoVs mainly spread through the respiratory tract and there is no clear evidence showing CoVs can follow fecal-oral routes like human NoVs and other foodborne viruses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

          To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in faecal samples

            We present severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time RT-PCR results of all respiratory and faecal samples from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China, throughout the course of their illness and obligated quarantine period. Real-time RT-PCR was used to detect COVID-19 following the recommended protocol (appendix p 1). Patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed after two sequential positive respiratory tract sample results. Respiratory and faecal samples were collected every 1–2 days (depending on the availability of faecal samples) until two sequential negative results were obtained. We reviewed patients' demographic information, underlying diseases, clinical indices, and treatments from their official medical records. The study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (approval number K162-1) and informed consent was obtained from participants. Notably, patients who met discharge criteria were allowed to stay in hospital for extended observation and health care. Between Jan 16 and March 15, 2020, we enrolled 98 patients. Both respiratory and faecal samples were collected from 74 (76%) patients. Faecal samples from 33 (45%) of 74 patients were negative for SARS CoV-2 RNA, while their respiratory swabs remained positive for a mean of 15·4 days (SD 6·7) from first symptom onset. Of the 41 (55%) of 74 patients with faecal samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, respiratory samples remained positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for a mean of 16·7 days (SD 6·7) and faecal samples remained positive for a mean of 27·9 days (10·7) after first symptom onset (ie, for a mean of 11·2 days [9·2] longer than for respiratory samples). The full disease course of the 41 patients with faecal samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA is shown in the figure . Notably, patient 1 had positive faecal samples for 33 days continuously after the respiratory samples became negative, and patient 4 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in their faecal sample for 47 days after first symptom onset (appendix pp 4–5). Figure Timeline of results from throat swabs and faecal samples through the course of disease for 41 patients with SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive faecal samples, January to March, 2020 A summary of clinical symptoms and medical treatments is shown in the appendix (pp 2–3, 6–8). The presence of gastrointestinal symptoms was not associated with faecal sample viral RNA positivity (p=0·45); disease severity was not associated with extended duration of faecal sample viral RNA positivity (p=0·60); however, antiviral treatment was positively associated with the presence of viral RNA in faecal samples (p=0·025; appendix pp 2–3). These associations should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of confounding. Additionally, the Ct values of all three targeted genes (RdRp, N, E) in the first faecal sample that was positive for viral RNA were negatively associated with the duration of faecal viral RNA positivity (RdRp gene r= –0·34; N gene r= –0·02; and E gene r= –0·16), whereas the correlation of the Ct values with duration of faecal sample positivity was only significant for RdRp (p=0·033; N gene p=0·91; E gene p=0·33). Our data suggest the possibility of extended duration of viral shedding in faeces, for nearly 5 weeks after the patients' respiratory samples tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Although knowledge about the viability of SARS-CoV-2 is limited, 1 the virus could remain viable in the environment for days, which could lead to faecal–oral transmission, as seen with severe acute respiratory virus CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome CoV. 2 Therefore, routine stool sample testing with real-time RT-PCR is highly recommended after the clearance of viral RNA in a patient's respiratory samples. Strict precautions to prevent transmission should be taken for patients who are in hospital or self-quarantined if their faecal samples test positive. As with any new infectious disease, case definition evolves rapidly as knowledge of the disease accrues. Our data suggest that faecal sample positivity for SARS-CoV-2 RNA normally lags behind that of respiratory tract samples; therefore, we do not suggest the addition of testing of faecal samples to the existing diagnostic procedures for COVID-19. However, the decision on when to discontinue precautions to prevent transmission in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 is crucial for management of medical resources. We would suggest the addition of faecal testing for SARS-CoV-2. 3 Presently, the decision to discharge a patient is made if they show no relevant symptoms and at least two sequential negative results by real-time RT-PCR of sputum or respiratory tract samples collected more than 24 h apart. Here, we observed that for over half of patients, their faecal samples remained positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for a mean of 11·2 days after respiratory tract samples became negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, implying that the virus is actively replicating in the patient's gastrointestinal tract and that faecal–oral transmission could occur after viral clearance in the respiratory tract. Determining whether a virus is viable using nucleic acid detection is difficult; further research using fresh stool samples at later timepoints in patients with extended duration of faecal sample positivity is required to define transmission potential. Additionally, we found patients normally had no or very mild symptoms after respiratory tract sample results became negative (data not shown); however, asymptomatic transmission has been reported. 4 No cases of transmission via the faecal–oral route have yet been reported for SARS-CoV-2, which might suggest that infection via this route is unlikely in quarantine facilities, in hospital, or while under self-isolation. However, potential faecal–oral transmission might pose an increased risk in contained living premises such as hostels, dormitories, trains, buses, and cruise ships. Respiratory transmission is still the primary route for SARS-CoV-2 and evidence is not yet sufficient to develop practical measures for the group of patients with negative respiratory tract sample results but positive faecal samples. Further research into the viability and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in faeces is required.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Viability of the SARS Coronavirus

              The main route of transmission of SARS CoV infection is presumed to be respiratory droplets. However the virus is also detectable in other body fluids and excreta. The stability of the virus at different temperatures and relative humidity on smooth surfaces were studied. The dried virus on smooth surfaces retained its viability for over 5 days at temperatures of 22–25°C and relative humidity of 40–50%, that is, typical air-conditioned environments. However, virus viability was rapidly lost (>3 log10) at higher temperatures and higher relative humidity (e.g., 38°C, and relative humidity of >95%). The better stability of SARS coronavirus at low temperature and low humidity environment may facilitate its transmission in community in subtropical area (such as Hong Kong) during the spring and in air-conditioned environments. It may also explain why some Asian countries in tropical area (such as Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand) with high temperature and high relative humidity environment did not have major community outbreaks of SARS.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Curr Opin Food Sci
                Curr Opin Food Sci
                Current Opinion in Food Science
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2214-7993
                2214-8000
                4 May 2020
                4 May 2020
                Affiliations
                [0005]Department of Food Science & Technology, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                Article
                S2214-7993(20)30041-2
                10.1016/j.cofs.2020.04.011
                7198165
                32373478
                c82f4407-4427-4c1c-9ee0-db6821b2e42b
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article