With interest we follow the publications that show the presence of putative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by electron microscopy (EM) in patient tissues and the debate about these results, which should have sufficiently raised attention to their correct interpretation.1, 2
Nevertheless, ultrastructural details in autopsy tissues have been misinterpreted as coronavirus particles in recent papers. Bradley and colleagues3 described “coronavirus-like particles” in autopsy specimens of the “respiratory system, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract”, and in a case report Dolhnikoff and colleagues4 described “viral particles” in “different cell types of cardiac tissue” of a deceased child. However, the images in these publications show putative virus particles that lack sufficient ultrastructure for an unambiguous identification as virus. Some of these particles definitely represent other cellular structures, such as rough endoplasmic reticulum (eg, Dolhnikoff and colleagues,4 figure 3B), multivesicular bodies (Bradley and colleagues,3 figure 5C) and coated vesicles (Bradley and colleagues,3 figure 5B, G). Moreover, it is remarkable that Dolhnikoff and colleagues4 referred to findings, described by Tavazzi and colleagues,5 of “viral particles” in interstitial cells, which are clearly non-viral structures, such as coated vesicles.4, 5 Furthermore, Bradley and colleagues3 quoted publications as a reference for their virus particle identification, which, in our opinion, both identified non-coronavirus structures as coronavirus particles, as already discussed by Goldsmith and colleagues1 and by Miller and Brealey.2
EM is complementary to other techniques used for studying diseases, and it continues to be a valuable tool in certain diagnostic fields. In studies of infectious diseases, EM is considered the gold standard to prove the presence of an infectious unit; in the case of COVID-19 diagnosis, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 particles (figure, A–D ) complements the molecular traces of SARS-CoV-2-specific proteins or nucleic acids. Furthermore, EM allows the exact localisation of viruses in tissues and within cells. This, in turn allows target cells of virus infection to be specified (figure E) and informs about the reproduction of the virus.
As diagnostic EM requires both specialised staff and expensive equipment, and has been replaced by other methods (eg, immunohistochemistry) in several fields of application, its use has been in decline in the past decades, resulting in irreversible loss of expertise that now becomes dramatically overt during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This dilemma of diagnostic EM should alarm us all, as misleading information on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in tissue has already made its way into the scientific literature and seems to be perpetuated.
Acknowledgments
We declare no competing interests.
References
- 1.Goldsmith CS, Miller SE, Martines RB, Bullock HA, Zaki SR. Electron microscopy of SARS-CoV-2: a challenging task. Lancet. 2020;395:e99. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31188-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Miller SE, Brealey JK. Visualization of putative coronavirus in kidney. Kidney Int. 2020;98:231–232. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.05.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bradley BT, Maioli H, Johnston R. Histopathology and ultrastructural findings of fatal COVID-19 infections in Washington State: a case series. Lancet. 2020;396:320–332. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31305-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Dolhnikoff M, Ferreira Ferranti J, Apericida de Almeida Monteiro R. SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue of a child with COVID-19-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4:790–794. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30257-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Tavazzi G, Pellegrini C, Maurelli M. Myocardial localisation of coronavirus in COVID-19 cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22:911–915. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]