| Literature DB >> 35493369 |
Joseph Walish1, Jason Cox1, Jeremy Boone2, Jennifer Stone2, Nathan Henderson2, Molly Maloney2, Joe Ma3, Jonathan Maa3, Nghiem On3, Konrad Petre3, Bruce G Goodwin4, Shanmuga Sozhamannan4,5, Robert Deans1.
Abstract
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) remains the gold standard in disease diagnostics due to its extreme sensitivity and specificity. However, PCR tests are expensive and complex, require skilled personnel and specialized equipment to conduct the tests, and have long turnaround times. On the other hand, lateral flow immunoassay-based antigen tests are rapid, relatively inexpensive, and can be performed by untrained personnel at the point of care or even in the home. However, rapid antigen tests are less sensitive than PCR since they lack the inherent target amplification of PCR. It has been argued that rapid antigen tests are better indicators of infection in public health decision-making processes to test, trace, and isolate infected people to curtail further transmission. Hence, there is a critical need to increase the sensitivity of rapid antigen tests and create innovative solutions to achieve that goal. Herein, we report the development of a low-cost diagnostic platform, enabling rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 under field or at-home conditions. This platform (Halo™) is a small, highly accurate, consumer-friendly diagnostic reader paired with fluorescently labeled lateral flow assays and custom software for collection and reporting of results. The focus of this study is to compare the analytical performance of HaloTM against comparable tests that use either colloidal gold nanoparticles or fluorescence-based reporters in simulated nasal matrix and not in clinical samples. Live virus data has demonstrated limit of detection performance of 1.9 TCID50/test in simulated nasal matrix for the delta variant, suggesting that single-assay detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections may be feasible. Performance of the system against all tested SARS CoV-2 virus variants showed comparable sensitivities indicating mutations in SARS-CoV-2 variants do not negatively impact the assay.Entities:
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; diagnostics; europium; fluorescence; handheld reader; immunoassay; mobile app; rapid antigen test
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35493369 PMCID: PMC9039038 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.852083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1(A) SARS-CoV-2 stocks were diluted with simulated nasal matrix. Serial dilutions were then prepared to assess the preliminary limit of detection for each strain of the virus. (B) 80 μl of a given dilution was then added dropwise to the assay cassette via pipette and the assay developed for 15 mins. (C) The cassette was then inserted into the Halo reader to record the test line intensity.
Preliminary LoD in SNM—Halo Reader Live Virus in SNM.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| ||||
| USA-WA1/2020 (working stock 2) | Wild type | A | 1.33 × 103 | 1.4 × 106 | 4.1 |
| USA-WA1/2020 (working stock 6) | Wild type | A | 3.16 × 102 | 1.1 × 106 | 1.0 |
| USA/CA_CDC_5574/2020 | Alpha | B.1.1.7 | 2.8 × 102 | 2.3 × 106 | 0.9 |
| hCoV-19/South Africa/KRISP-K005325/2020 | Beta | B.1.351 | 1.25 × 102 | 1.0 × 106 | 0.4 |
| hCoV-19/Japan/TY7-503/2021 | Gamma | P.1 | 8.94 × 102 | NA | 2.7 |
| hCoV-19/USA/PHC658/2021 | Delta | B.1.617.2 | 3.08 × 102 | 8.75 × 105 | 1.0 |
NA, not available.
Figure 2(Left) Test line intensities plotted as a function of the TCID50/test for the wild type and four variants from the preliminary LoD studies. (Right) The test line intensities for the delta variant for both the preliminary (gray data points) and confirmatory (yellow and red data points) LoD experiments. The dashed line represents the positive/negative threshold.
SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassay performance rankings.
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| C2Sense Halo | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.1 |
| SARS-CoV-2 | ||||||||
| test | ||||||||
| B | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 (tie) | 2 (tie) | 1.9 |
| A | 3 (tie) | 3 (tie) | 3 | 3 (tie) | 3 (tie) | 2 (tie) | 2 (tie) | 2.7 |
| E | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 (tie) | 3 (tie) | 2 (tie) | 2 (tie) | 3.4 |
| F | 3 (tie) | 3 (tie) | 5 (tie) | 6 (tie) | 7 | 7 | TNP | 5.2 |
| C | 6 | 6 | 5 (tie) | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5.4 |
| D | 7 | 7 | 5 (tie) | 6 (tie) | 3 (tie) | 5 | 5 | 5.4 |
1 = Best performance; 5 = worst performance.
TNP, test not performed.
Fluorescent based reader test.
LoD from B1 kit lot used for comparison.
LoD from B2 kit lot used for comparison.
LoD from B3 kit lot used for comparison.
Colorimetric version of the Halo SARS-CoV-2 test.