A comparison assesses the efficiency of self-sampling devices for genital secretions and HPV DNA, indicating the vaginal veil's superiority.
Background/Objectives: Self-collection devices are more widely used than ever for detecting sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer. Despite this, we still lack a clear understanding of how well these tools actually collect and release the necessary molecular samples. This study compared the in vitro uptake and release performance of commonly used self-sampling devices for total proteins, nucleic acids, and episomal human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16) DNA. Methods: An artificial cervicovaginal fluid composed of phosphate-buffered saline supplemented with serum and nucleic acid extracts was serially diluted 2-fold. Each dilution was applied for 5 min to the external surfaces of a vaginal veil (Vaginal Veil Collector V-Veil UP2TM device), a flocked swab (FLOQSwabs®), and a commercial vaginal tampon. Non-woven surgical tissue and plastic film served as controls. Total proteins and nucleic acids were quantified by spectrophotometry, and HPV-16 DNA by real-time quantitative PCR. Results: Recovery rates for proteins and nucleic acids were highest for the vaginal veil (81% and 91%), followed by the swab (66% and 70%) and non-woven tissue (44% and 47%). In contrast, the tampon and plastic film performed poorly, releasing less than 30% of proteins and negligible amounts of nucleic acids. Episomal HPV-16 DNA release was highest for the veil (89%), compared with the swab (57%), non-woven tissue (37%), tampon (4%), and plastic film (2%). Conclusions: The vaginal veil demonstrated superior uptake and release of proteins, nucleic acids, and HPV-16 DNA at physiological concentrations. Its non-absorbent structure allows high saturation with efficient release of genital components, including microbial genomes, whereas vaginal tampons retained these components, limiting analytical recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bouassa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: