| Literature DB >> 33972921 |
Abhijeet Mohanty1,2, Adarsh P Fatrekar1,2, Saravanan Krishnan3, Amit A Vernekar1,2.
Abstract
Developing robust methods to detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a causative agent for the current global health pandemic, is an exciting area of research. Nevertheless, the currently used conventional reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technique in COVID-19 detection endures with some inevitable limitations. Consequently, the establishment of rapid diagnostic tools and quick isolation of infected patients is highly essential. Furthermore, the requirement of point-of-care testing is the need of the hour. Considering this, we have provided a brief review of the use of very recently reported robust spectral tools for rapid COVID-19 detection. The spectral tools include, colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS), with the admittance of principal component analysis (PCA) and machine learning (ML) for meeting the high-throughput and fool-proof platforms for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, are reviewed. Recently, these techniques have been readily applied to screen a large number of suspected patients within a short period and they demonstrated higher sensitivity for the detection of COVID-19 patients from unaffected human subjects.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; MALDI-MS; Machine learning; RT-LAMP; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2
Year: 2021 PMID: 33972921 PMCID: PMC8099787 DOI: 10.1016/j.rechem.2021.100138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Results Chem ISSN: 2211-7156
Fig. 1Nasal swabs were used to acquire MALDI-MS spectra. The obtained data were subjected to PCA and ML techniques. Figure adapted and redrawn from Ref. [18].
Fig. 2Workflow of RT-LAMP process in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
Testing of 592 clinical samples by RT-qPCR and RT-LAMP techniques classified into Ct value bins. The table is adapted from Ref. [28].
| Hot swab-to-RT-LAMP | RT-LAMP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ct | Pos | Neg | Sum | ||
| RT-qPCR | Pos | 0–25 | 38 | 4 | 42 |
| 25–30 | 17 | 5 | 22 | ||
| 30–35 | 5 | 23 | 28 | ||
| 35–40 | 0 | 36 | 36 | ||
| Neg | Neg | 1 | 214 | 215 | |
| Sum | 61 | 282 | 343 | ||
| Direct swab-to-RT-LAMP | RT-LAMP | ||||
| Ct | Pos | Neg | Sum | ||
| RT-qPCR | Pos | 0–25 | 15 | 1 | 16 |
| 25–30 | 6 | 11 | 17 | ||
| 30–35 | 2 | 21 | 23 | ||
| 35–40 | 3 | 23 | 26 | ||
| Neg | Neg | 9 | 144 | 153 | |
| Sum | 35 | 200 | 235 | ||
Comparison of several parameters of RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, and MALDI-MS [19], [47].
| Parameters | RT-PCR | RT-LAMP | MALDI-MS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | N, ORF, E genes | N, ORF, E, S genes | M, S, N proteins |
| Assay reaction time (min) | ~120 | ~30 | ~1 |
| Detection basis | Ct values (qualitative) | Colorimetric (qualitative) | |
| Cost (USD) | 15 | ~3–4 | <1 |
| Instrumentation | bulky, sophisticated and expensive | simple, portable, economical | Sophisticated and expensive |
| Sensitivity (%) | 30–60 | ~90 | ~98 |
| Specificity (%) | ~100 | ~97 | ~100 |