The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses a severe threat to human health and the global economy and has resulted in overwhelming stress on health care systems worldwide. Despite the global health catastrophe, especially in the number of infections and fatalities, the COVID-19 pandemic has also revolutionized research and discovery with remarkable success in diagnostics, treatments, and vaccine development. The use of many diagnostic methods has helped establish public health guidelines to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. However, limited information has been shared about these methods, and there is a need for the scientific community to learn about these technologies, in addition to their sensitivity, specificity, and limitations. This review article is focused on providing insights into the major methods used for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We describe in detail the core principle of each method, including molecular and serological approaches, along with reported claims about the rates of false negatives and false positives, the types of specimens needed, and the level of technology and the time required to perform each test. Although this study will not rank or prioritize these methods, the information will help in the development of guidelines and diagnostic protocols in clinical settings and reference laboratories.

We previously reported that the triple antibiotic formulation, known as anti-MAP therapy, exhibits unique synergistic antimicrobial activity and should be effective for treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) associated with Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP). The absence of MAP detection in some CD cases may be linked to poor diagnostics or lack of association with the disease. To understand the therapeutic response of some CD patients to anti-MAP therapy in absence of MAP detection, we investigated the immunomodulatory potency of anti-MAP therapy and its major ingredients, clarithromycin (CLA) and rifabutin (RIF), in THP-1, Caco-2, and Jurkat T-cells. Anti-MAP formulation at 2.0 μg/mL decreased MAP viability in macrophages by 18-fold over 72 h. Additionally, M1/M2 macrophage polarization ratio was reduced by 6.7-fold, and expression and protein levels of TNF-α and IL-6 were reduced by 2.9-fold, whereas IL-10 increased by 5.0-fold in these cells. Mechanistically, the effect of anti-MAP formulation on NF-κB p65 activation was dose-dependent and decreased to 13.4% at 2.0 μg/mL. Most importantly, anti-MAP therapy also reversed pro-inflammatory response in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced macrophages, which shows that the anti-inflammatory effect of the treatment is not just due to a decrease in MAP viability. To study the anti-cytotoxic effects of anti-MAP therapy in Caco-2 monolayers infected with MAP or treated with dextran sodium sulfate (DSS), we showed a 45% decrease in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity and an 84% increase in glutathione (GSH) activity, which supports anti-apoptotic activity of the drug. In Jurkat T-cells, anti-MAP therapy decreased T-cell proliferation by 4.8-fold following treatment with phytohemagglutinin (PHA) and by 2.9-fold with MAP purified protein derivative (PPD). Overall, the data demonstrate that anti-MAP therapy plays a significant role in modulating and eliciting a protective immune response in macrophages, endothelial cells, and T lymphocytes, even in absence of infection. This may explain the therapeutic response of some CD patients to treatment, even in absence of MAP detection, infection, or total eradication. The study supports anti-MAP therapy as an alternate treatment option in CD patients, especially in absence of reliable MAP diagnostics.