A fast extraction-free isothermal LAMP assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 with potential use in resource-limited settings.
Extraction-free LAMP
Resource-limited settings
SARS-CoV-2
qRT-PCR
Journal
Virology journal
ISSN: 1743-422X
Titre abrégé: Virol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101231645
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 05 2022
02 05 2022
Historique:
received:
19
01
2022
accepted:
30
03
2022
entrez:
3
5
2022
pubmed:
4
5
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To retain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, fast, sensitive and cost-effective testing is essential, particularly in resource limited settings (RLS). Current standard nucleic acid-based RT-PCR assays, although highly sensitive and specific, require transportation of samples to specialised laboratories, trained staff and expensive reagents. The latter are often not readily available in low- and middle-income countries and this may significantly impact on the successful disease management in these settings. Various studies have suggested a SARS-CoV-2 loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay as an alternative method to RT-PCR. Four previously published primer pairs were used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the LAMP assay. To determine optimal conditions, different temperatures, sample input and incubation times were tested. Ninety-three extracted RNA samples from St. George's Hospital, London, 10 non-extracted nasopharyngeal swab samples from Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, and 92 non-extracted samples from Queen Elisabeth Central Hospital (QECH), Malawi, which have previously been tested for SARS-Cov-2 by quantitative reverse-transcription RealTime PCR (qRT-PCR), were analysed in the LAMP assay. In this study we report the optimisation of an extraction-free colourimetric SARS-CoV-2 LAMP assay and demonstrated that a lower limit of detection (LOD) between 10 and 100 copies/µL of SARS-CoV-2 could be readily detected by a colour change of the reaction within as little as 30 min. We further show that this assay could be quickly established in Malawi, as no expensive equipment is necessary. We tested 92 clinical samples from QECH and showed the sensitivity and specificity of the assay to be 86.7% and 98.4%, respectively. Some viral transport media, used routinely to stabilise RNA in clinical samples during transportation, caused a non-specific colour-change in the LAMP reaction and therefore we suggest collecting samples in phosphate buffered saline (which did not affect the colour) as the assay allows immediate sample analysis on-site. SARS-CoV-2 LAMP is a cheap and reliable assay that can be readily employed in RLS to improve disease monitoring and management.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To retain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, fast, sensitive and cost-effective testing is essential, particularly in resource limited settings (RLS). Current standard nucleic acid-based RT-PCR assays, although highly sensitive and specific, require transportation of samples to specialised laboratories, trained staff and expensive reagents. The latter are often not readily available in low- and middle-income countries and this may significantly impact on the successful disease management in these settings. Various studies have suggested a SARS-CoV-2 loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay as an alternative method to RT-PCR.
METHODS
Four previously published primer pairs were used for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the LAMP assay. To determine optimal conditions, different temperatures, sample input and incubation times were tested. Ninety-three extracted RNA samples from St. George's Hospital, London, 10 non-extracted nasopharyngeal swab samples from Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, and 92 non-extracted samples from Queen Elisabeth Central Hospital (QECH), Malawi, which have previously been tested for SARS-Cov-2 by quantitative reverse-transcription RealTime PCR (qRT-PCR), were analysed in the LAMP assay.
RESULTS
In this study we report the optimisation of an extraction-free colourimetric SARS-CoV-2 LAMP assay and demonstrated that a lower limit of detection (LOD) between 10 and 100 copies/µL of SARS-CoV-2 could be readily detected by a colour change of the reaction within as little as 30 min. We further show that this assay could be quickly established in Malawi, as no expensive equipment is necessary. We tested 92 clinical samples from QECH and showed the sensitivity and specificity of the assay to be 86.7% and 98.4%, respectively. Some viral transport media, used routinely to stabilise RNA in clinical samples during transportation, caused a non-specific colour-change in the LAMP reaction and therefore we suggest collecting samples in phosphate buffered saline (which did not affect the colour) as the assay allows immediate sample analysis on-site.
CONCLUSION
SARS-CoV-2 LAMP is a cheap and reliable assay that can be readily employed in RLS to improve disease monitoring and management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35501862
doi: 10.1186/s12985-022-01800-7
pii: 10.1186/s12985-022-01800-7
pmc: PMC9059459
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA
63231-63-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
77Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Epidemiol Infect. 2021 Jun 23;149:e150
pubmed: 34158139
Cell. 2020 May 14;181(4):914-921.e10
pubmed: 32330414
J Vis Exp. 2016 Apr 18;(110):
pubmed: 27167168
Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2020 Aug;63:97-105
pubmed: 32512499
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;110:353-358
pubmed: 34375762
Rev Med Virol. 2021 Nov;31(6):e2215
pubmed: 33476080
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Aug 28;40:101101
pubmed: 34476394
Virol J. 2020 Oct 21;17(1):160
pubmed: 33087160
Biotechniques. 2015 Feb 01;58(2):59-68
pubmed: 25652028
J Clin Virol. 2021 Mar;136:104764
pubmed: 33636553
BMJ. 2021 Feb 17;372:n334
pubmed: 33597166
J Biochem Biophys Methods. 2007 Apr 10;70(3):499-501
pubmed: 17011631
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jun 15;28(12):E63
pubmed: 10871386
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 24;3:CD013705
pubmed: 33760236
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 10;384(23):2212-2218
pubmed: 33882219
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;40(2):225-246
pubmed: 32984911
Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Mar;116:133-137
pubmed: 34958929
Oral Dis. 2021 May 15;:
pubmed: 33991381
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Jun;9(6):e773-e781
pubmed: 33711262
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011 Jun;62(1):41-8
pubmed: 21276085
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 May;42(5):1956-61
pubmed: 15131154