| Literature DB >> 32698479 |
Navid Rabiee1, Mojtaba Bagherzadeh1, Amir Ghasemi2, Hossein Zare3, Sepideh Ahmadi4,5, Yousef Fatahi6,7,8, Rassoul Dinarvand6,7, Mohammad Rabiee9, Seeram Ramakrishna10, Mohammadreza Shokouhimehr11, Rajender S Varma12.
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; nanoparticles; nanotechnology; point-of-use; rapid detection of virus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32698479 PMCID: PMC7404277 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21145126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Schematic illustration of common Lung computed tomography (CT) and molecular test for diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and emerging detection methods, based on the optical-based biosensor, Point-of-Care (POC) testing, and the optical-based nanosensor.
Figure 2Transmission electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2 spherical viral particles in a cell [39]. Reprinted (adapted) with permission from the American Chemical Society (2020).
Scheme 1An illustration of the scope of this article for highly sensitive point-of-care detection.
Figure 3Chest CT of a 37-year-old male patient. This individual returned from Wuhan to Wenzhou on January 19 and inflicted with cough and expectoration. The first chest CT was conducted on January 24, which showed subtle peripheral ground-glass opacity in the middle lobe, and right inferior lobe. The second CT images, of January 27, and the third examination, on February 2, showed a significant increase of lesion numbers and density, especially in both lower lobes. The fourth CT images, of February 7, showed a decrease in the density of the pulmonary lesions. On the fifth CT examination of February 15, the lesions were absorbed, and the patient was discharged [52]. Reprinted (adapted) with permission from Elsevier.
Sensitive of detection, advantages, and limitations of current methods in diagnosis of COVID-19.
| Methods | Sensitivity of Detection | Analyses of Time | Advantages | Limitation | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture | 30–50% | 1–3 days | Appropriated for slower-growing pathogens | Risk of contamination, time-consuming | [ |
| Next-generation sequencing (NGS) | - | Around 1–2 weeks | Ability to fully recognize the genome, even mutations. Detection based on genes | Time-consuming, short reads, need for technical expertise | [ |
| Immunoassays Methods (e.g., ELISA) | 20–80% | About 2 h with the kit | High sensitivity, ability to detect IgG and IgM antibodies in serum. Detection based on antibodies | Expensive to prepare antibody, limit the amount of antigen in samples, antibody instability | [ |
| RT-PCR | 95% | 2 h | Highly sensitive method | Requires expensive instruments, long reaction times | [ |
| LAMP | >95% | About 30 min | Rapid, simple, high specificity and specificity | Difficult in primer design, false-positive results | [ |
| Computed tomography (CT) | 97% | Rapid | Rapid analysis | Non-specific | [ |
Figure 4Schematic representation of Au-nanorodes@MOF-5 preparation and SERS activity. Reprinted from [106]. Copyright (2020) American Chemical Society.
Figure 5Photocurrent response of the ZnO nanorods (a) and ZnO-nanorodes@ZIF-8 (b) in the presence of H2O2 (0.1 mM). Reprinted from [110]. Copyright (2020), American Chemical Society.
Figure 6Schematic illustration of SERS intensity and color changes of mask-embedded nanoparticles (NPs) in the present of SARS-CoV-2.
Figure 7Schematic depiction of various steps to prepare NiCo2O4/CoO/CNTs-based assay to identify HIV-1 DNA; producing NiCo2O4/CoO/CNTs-based assay, The DNA probes immobilized, and the detection of the HIV-1 DNA [151]. It is reprinted with permission from Elsevier.