Hours not weeks: rapid molecular diagnostics for congenital TORCH infections: reshaping neonatal outcomes


Abstract

Congenital TORCH infections caused by Toxoplasma gondii, other agents (such as Treponema pallidum and hepatitis B virus), rubella virus, cytomegalovirus (CMV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV), which pose a persistent threat to neonatal health worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where morbidity, developmental impairment, and infant mortality remain high. Early and accurate diagnosis is vital for guiding prompt treatment, yet traditional methods like serology and culture suffer from limited sensitivity, slow turnaround, and sample volume constraints, particularly in neonates. This review synthesizes recent advances in molecular diagnostics highlighting real-time and multiplex PCR, digital droplet PCR, nested PCR, loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and metagenomic next-generation sequencing which vastly improve sensitivity, specificity, and speed in detecting congenital infections from minimal patient samples. These technologies now enable rapid, comprehensive, and actionable diagnosis, supporting the paradigm shift toward precision neonatal care. Technological challenges and pre-analytical issues are addressed, alongside recommendations for integrating molecular platforms into clinical algorithms to optimize outcomes for at-risk newborns. The review concludes that adoption of advanced molecular diagnostics is revolutionizing neonatal infection management facilitating early intervention, reducing sequelae, and markedly enhancing the prospects for survival and neurodevelopment in neonate.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].