Abstract Aim: Importance of laboratory diagnosis has come to the spotlight once again with the Covid-19 pandemic caused by Sars-CoV-2 and significant changes have taken place in terms of laboratory operation. A global effort has emerged when all healthcare professionals faced a biological threat. Interlaboratory collaboration and multidisciplinary approach contributed to this effort. This study aims to explain step-by-step establishment of a fully capable laboratory for Sars-CoV-2 diagnosis to support local and global fight for the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Several precautions were taken, and disaster plans were updated because of the changes in employee health and workload distribution. Some of these are setting up a laboratory from scratch for microorganism diagnostic tests performed in pandemic cases, measures for healthcare workers, personnel assignment planning, changes in the variety and number of tests, innovations in quality standards and the contribution of laboratories to scientific studies. Results: XXXXX Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory has become one of the laboratories in Türkiye where Sars-Cov-2 and its mutations have been studied the most with 1,710,856 samples between 01 October 2020 and 01 May 2022 since its establishment and it has become the laboratory with the highest number of equipment and technical personnel in the capital. Conclusion: This study summarizes all the phases of XXXXX Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory beginning with its establishment from the scratch and covers all the steps to render this facility fully operational. Keywords: COVID-19, laboratory disaster planning, laboratory staff, personal protective equipment, Sars-CoV-2

Studies show that there may be a relationship between ABO blood type and SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. It was aimed to determine by investigating the blood type of patients whose one‐step reverse transcription and real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR) test were positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. ABO and Rh blood types of individuals whose RT‐qPCR test was positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 were examined and an evaluation was made to identify whether there was a relationship between them or not. The blood type data of 44.928 SARS‐CoV‐2 positive RT‐qPCR test results have been obtained. 17.656 (39.29%) were delta, 8048 (17.91%) were alpha, 800 (1.78%) were beta, and 3000 (6.67%) were omicrons while 15.424 (34.33%) SARS‐CoV‐2 positive mutation was found to be negative. Our study suggests that O and Rh (−) blood types may provide protection against delta, AB and Rh (+) blood types may hinder omicron infection while A and Rh (+) blood types may be more vulnerable to alpha and delta while B and Rh (+) are more sensitive to beta mutation. The molecular mechanism underlying the relationship between blood types and SARS‐CoV‐2 infection needs further molecular studies and multi‐centered studies.

Objectives: Reverse transcription and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) based on the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA demonstration is the gold standard in diagnosis. Data files obtained from PCR devices should be analysed by a specialist physician and results should be transferred to Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). CAtenA Smart PCR (Ventura, Ankara, Türkiye) program is a local bioinformatics software that assess PCR data files with artificial intelligence, submits to expert approval and transfers the approved results to LIMS. The aim of this study is to investigate its accuracy and matching success rate with expert analysis. Methods: A total of 9400 RT-qPCR test results studied in Ankara Provincial Health Directorate Public Health Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory were compared with respect to expert evaluation and CAtenA results. Results: It was determined that the preliminary evaluation results of the CAtenA matched 86% of the negative and 90% of the positive results provided by expert analysis. 987 tests which CAtenA determined as inconclusive and suggested repeating PCR were found either negative or positive by expert analysis. A significant difference between positive and negative matching success rates and artificial intelligence (AI) based software overall accuracy was found and associated with the missed tests of the AI. Conclusions: As a result, it was suggested there is a low risk of confirming false positive results without expert analysis and test repetitions would cause losing time along with extra test costs. It was agreed that the PCR analysis used in CAtenA should be improved particularly in terms of test repetitions.

Objectives: Main purpose of this study was evaluating inactive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine subsequent anti-S1 IgG feedback and the aspects involved in such reactions for professionals in healthcare (HCP) as the dominant risk group.Methods: Thirty-six HCPs with previous COVID-19 infection and 164 with no priors, 200 in total, who was working in the Ankara Public Health Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory were included. Main tool of identifying humoral immune response quantifably in serum samples which were obtained 28 days after administering each of two doses of vaccine was Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 kit. Results: Average antibody levels of 164 negative HCPs were 15.82 ± 8.59 IU/mL and 26.042 ± 10.73 IU/mL while 36 positive HCPs demonstrated antibody responses as 66.083 ± 33.927 IU/mL and 90 ±  27.012 IU/mL 28 days after each of two doses of vaccine for both individual groups respectively. A statistically meaningful difference was found in antibody levels after two vaccine doses in both groups (p < 0.0001). The authors observed statistically higher average antibody levels after initial vaccine dosage in HCPs with infection than the antibody levels of naive individuals after second dose (p < 0.0001). Age, gender and vaccination feedback did not have a statistically meaningful disparity (p > 0.05). Conclusions: It was concluded that the average antibody level achieved after inital dose n HCPs with COVID-19 infection was surpassing the average antibody level obtained after the second dose in naive HCPs. The authors recommend further clinical researches on antibody levels and the extent of protection to prohibit COVID-19