Rapid Isothermal Amplification and Portable Detection System for SARS-CoV-2
TL;DR: The details of an RT-LAMP isothermal assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus with performance comparable to currently approved tests using RT-PCR are provided, including the demonstration of a smartphone-based point-of-care device that can be used at the point of sample collection.
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic provides an urgent example where a gap exists between availability of state-of-the-art diagnostics and current needs. As assay details and primer sequences become widely known, many laboratories could perform diagnostic tests using methods such as RT-PCR or isothermal RT-LAMP amplification. A key advantage of RT-LAMP based approaches compared to RT-PCR is that RT-LAMP is known to be robust in detecting targets from unprocessed samples. In addition, RT-LAMP assays are performed at a constant temperature enabling speed, simplicity, and point-of-use testing. Here, we provide the details of an RT-LAMP isothermal assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus with performance comparable to currently approved tests using RT-PCR. We characterize the assay by introducing swabs in virus spiked synthetic nasal fluids, moving the swab to viral transport medium (VTM), and using a volume of that VTM for performing the amplification without an RNA extraction kit. The assay has a Limit-of-Detection (LOD) of 50 RNA copies/μL in the VTM solution within 20 minutes, and LOD of 5000 RNA copies/μL in the nasal solution. Additionally, we show the utility of this assay for real-time point-of-use testing by demonstrating detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in less than 40 minutes using an additively manufactured cartridge and a smartphone-based reader. Finally, we explore the speed and cost advantages by comparing the required resources and workflows with RT-PCR. This work could accelerate the development and availability of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics by proving alternatives to conventional laboratory benchtop tests.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection found no studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and concerns about applicability of results across all studies.
Abstract: Background
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.
Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.
Search methods
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.
Selection criteria
We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).
Data collection and analysis
Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.
Main results
Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays.
We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19.
Antigen tests
Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%).
At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.
No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing.
Rapid molecular assays
Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.
Authors' conclusions
Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected.
Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice.
Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.
941 citations
TL;DR: A review of the technologies used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in clinical laboratories as well as advances made for molecular, antigen-based, and immunological point-of-care testing, including recent developments in sensor and biosensor devices is presented in this paper.
Abstract: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to millions of confirmed cases and deaths worldwide. Efficient diagnostic tools are in high demand, as rapid and large-scale testing plays a pivotal role in patient management and decelerating disease spread. This paper reviews current technologies used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in clinical laboratories as well as advances made for molecular, antigen-based, and immunological point-of-care testing, including recent developments in sensor and biosensor devices. The importance of the timing and type of specimen collection is discussed, along with factors such as disease prevalence, setting, and methods. Details of the mechanisms of action of the various methodologies are presented, along with their application span and known performance characteristics. Diagnostic imaging techniques and biomarkers are also covered, with an emphasis on their use for assessing COVID-19 or monitoring disease severity or complications. While the SARS-CoV-2 literature is rapidly evolving, this review highlights topics of interest that have occurred during the pandemic and the lessons learned throughout. Exploring a broad armamentarium of techniques for detecting SARS-CoV-2 will ensure continued diagnostic support for clinicians, public health, and infection prevention and control for this pandemic and provide advice for future pandemic preparedness.
156 citations
TL;DR: Self-collected saliva is a valuable specimen to detect SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons because of its high sensitivity and specificity.
Abstract: Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved to become a global pandemic, largely owing to the transmission of its causative virus through asymptomatic carriers. Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in asymptomatic people is an urgent priority for the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks in communities. However, few data are available in asymptomatic persons regarding the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction testing. In addition, although self-collected saliva samples have significant logistical advantages in mass screening, their utility as an alternative specimen in asymptomatic persons is yet to be determined. Methods We conducted a mass screening study to compare the utility of nucleic acid amplification, such as reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, using nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and saliva samples from each individual in 2 cohorts of asymptomatic persons: the contact-tracing cohort and the airport quarantine cohort. Results In this mass screening study including 1924 individuals, the sensitivities of nucleic acid amplification testing with NPS and saliva specimens were 86% (90% credible interval, 77%-93%) and 92% (83%-97%), respectively, with specificities >99.9%. The true concordance probability between the NPS and saliva tests was estimated at 0.998 (90% credible interval, .996-.999) given the recent airport prevalence of 0.3%. In individuals testing positive, viral load was highly correlated between NPS and saliva specimens. Conclusion Both NPS and saliva specimens had high sensitivity and specificity. Self-collected saliva specimens are valuable for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in mass screening of asymptomatic persons.
139 citations
TL;DR: A saliva-based testing method that bypasses the need for RNA isolation/purification is described, which has a limit of detection of 500-1000 viral particles per mL, rivalling the standard NP swab method, and initial studies also show excellent performance with 100 clinical samples.
Abstract: Convenient, repeatable, large-scale molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 would be a key weapon to help control the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols are invasive and rely on numerous items that can be subject to supply chain bottlenecks, and as such are not suitable for frequent repeat testing. Specifically, personal protective equipment (PPE), nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, the associated viral transport media (VTM), and kits for RNA isolation and purification have all been in short supply at various times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 is spread through droplets and aerosols transmitted through person-to-person contact, and thus saliva may be a relevant medium for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Here we describe a saliva-based testing method that bypasses the need for RNA isolation/purification. In experiments with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus spiked into saliva, this method has a limit of detection of 500-1000 viral particles per mL, rivalling the standard NP swab method, and initial studies also show excellent performance with 100 clinical samples. This saliva-based process is operationally simple, utilizes readily available materials, and can be easily implemented by existing testing sites, thus allowing for high-throughput, rapid, and repeat testing of large populations. Graphical
120 citations
02 Sep 2020
TL;DR: This Perspective reviews the previous and ongoing research efforts on developing integrated micro- and nanosystems for nucleic acid-based virus detection, and highlights promising technologies that could provide better solutions for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and other viral infectious diseases.
Abstract: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlights the importance of rapid and sensitive diagnostics of viral infection that enables the efficient tracing of cases and the implementation of public health measures for disease containment. The immediate actions from both academia and industry have led to the development of many COVID-19 diagnostic systems that have secured fast-track regulatory approvals and have been serving our healthcare frontlines since the early stage of the pandemic. On diagnostic technologies, many of these clinically validated systems have significantly benefited from the recent advances in micro- and nanotechnologies in terms of platform design, analytical method, and system integration and miniaturization. The continued development of new diagnostic platforms integrating micro- and nanocomponents will address some of the shortcomings we have witnessed in the existing COVID-19 diagnostic systems. This Perspective reviews the previous and ongoing research efforts on developing integrated micro- and nanosystems for nucleic acid-based virus detection, and highlights promising technologies that could provide better solutions for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and other viral infectious diseases. With the summary and outlook of this rapidly evolving research field, we hope to inspire more research and development activities to better prepare our society for future public health crises.
72 citations
Cites background from "Rapid Isothermal Amplification and ..."
...In combination with a portable integrated system, a smartphone with a customized analytical application can efficiently quantify the assay result without the specialized knowledge of a medical professional.(207,238) The state-of-the-art smartphone, together with its integrated optics, computation power, and communication functions, have been demonstrated to provide sufficient sensitivity, making it a powerful alternative to the professional analytical readers....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The phylogenetic analysis suggests that bats might be the original host of this virus, an animal sold at the seafood market in Wuhan might represent an intermediate host facilitating the emergence of the virus in humans.
9,474 citations
TL;DR: A novel method that amplifies DNA with high specificity, efficiency and rapidity under isothermal conditions that employs a DNA polymerase and a set of four specially designed primers that recognize a total of six distinct sequences on the target DNA.
Abstract: We have developed a novel method, termed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), that amplifies DNA with high specificity, efficiency and rapidity under isothermal conditions. This method employs a DNA polymerase and a set of four specially designed primers that recognize a total of six distinct sequences on the target DNA. An inner primer containing sequences of the sense and antisense strands of the target DNA initiates LAMP. The following strand displacement DNA synthesis primed by an outer primer releases a single-stranded DNA. This serves as template for DNA synthesis primed by the second inner and outer primers that hybridize to the other end of the target, which produces a stem–loop DNA structure. In subsequent LAMP cycling one inner primer hybridizes to the loop on the product and initiates displacement DNA synthesis, yielding the original stem–loop DNA and a new stem–loop DNA with a stem twice as long. The cycling reaction continues with accumulation of 109 copies of target in less than an hour. The final products are stem–loop DNAs with several inverted repeats of the target and cauliflower-like structures with multiple loops formed by annealing between alternately inverted repeats of the target in the same strand. Because LAMP recognizes the target by six distinct sequences initially and by four distinct sequences afterwards, it is expected to amplify the target sequence with high selectivity.
6,765 citations
"Rapid Isothermal Amplification and ..." refers background or methods in this paper
...Diagnostics based on LAMP amplification are a compelling alternative to PCR, because LAMP can be performed without the need for commercial thermocyclers, resulting in decreased time to result (28)....
[...]
...In addition, RT-LAMP has advantages over RT-PCR for targeting sequences, due to its robustness against inhibitors (30, 31) as well as its high specificity, using four to six primers that identify six to eight regions on the template for amplification (28)....
[...]
TL;DR: Results of an analysis of nasal and throat swabs from 17 patients in Zhuhai, China, who had received a diagnosis of Covid-19 and found SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens positive.
Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens The authors report results of an analysis of nasal and throat swabs from 17 patients in Zhuhai, China, who had received a diagnosis of Covid-19....
4,236 citations
"Rapid Isothermal Amplification and ..." refers background in this paper
...For instance, the Ct values of 17 symptomatic patients in relation to the day of onset of any symptoms were reported (35)....
[...]
TL;DR: The CRISPR-based DETECTR assay provides a visual and faster alternative to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT–PCR assay, with 95% positive predictive agreement and 100% negative predictive agreement.
Abstract: An outbreak of betacoronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019. COVID-19, the disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, rapidly spread to produce a global pandemic. We report development of a rapid (<40 min), easy-to-implement and accurate CRISPR–Cas12-based lateral flow assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 from respiratory swab RNA extracts. We validated our method using contrived reference samples and clinical samples from patients in the United States, including 36 patients with COVID-19 infection and 42 patients with other viral respiratory infections. Our CRISPR-based DETECTR assay provides a visual and faster alternative to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT–PCR assay, with 95% positive predictive agreement and 100% negative predictive agreement. SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples is detected in under an hour using a CRISPR-based lateral flow assay.
1,664 citations
"Rapid Isothermal Amplification and ..." refers background in this paper
...Likewise, a recent paper reported the development of an RT-LAMP/Cas12 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with an LOD = 10 copies per μL, but also requires RNA extraction (41)....
[...]
TL;DR: The Cas13-based SHERLOCK platform can detect Zika virus and dengue virus in patient samples at concentrations as low as 1 copy per microliter and can distinguish the four DENV serotypes, as well as region-specific strains of ZIKV from the 2015–2016 pandemic.
Abstract: Mitigating global infectious disease requires diagnostic tools that are sensitive, specific, and rapidly field deployable. In this study, we demonstrate that the Cas13-based SHERLOCK (specific high-sensitivity enzymatic reporter unlocking) platform can detect Zika virus (ZIKV) and dengue virus (DENV) in patient samples at concentrations as low as 1 copy per microliter. We developed HUDSON (heating unextracted diagnostic samples to obliterate nucleases), a protocol that pairs with SHERLOCK for viral detection directly from bodily fluids, enabling instrument-free DENV detection directly from patient samples in
877 citations