Comparative analysis of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based assays for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 genes

  1. Daniel Urrutia-Cabrera
  2. Roxanne Hsiang-Chi Liou
  3. Jiang-Hui Wang
  4. Jianxiong Chan
  5. Sandy Shen-Chi Hung
  6. Alex W. Hewitt
  7. Keith R. Martin
  8. Thomas L. Edwards
  9. Patrick Kwan
  10. Raymond Ching-Bong Wong

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has infected millions worldwide, therefore there is an urgent need to increase our diagnostic capacity to identify infected cases. Although RT-qPCR remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection, this method requires specialised equipment in a diagnostic laboratory and has a long turn-around time to process the samples. To address this, several groups have recently reported the development of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) as a simple, low cost and rapid method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Herein we present a comparative analysis of three LAMP-based assays that target different regions of the SARS-CoV-2: ORF1ab RdRP, ORF1ab nsp3 and Gene N. We perform a detailed assessment of their sensitivity, kinetics and false positive rates for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in LAMP or RT-LAMP reactions, using colorimetric or fluorescent detection. Our results independently validate that all three assays can detect SARS-CoV-2 in 30 min, with robust accuracy at detecting as little as 1000 RNA copies and the results can be visualised simply by color changes. Incorporation of RT-LAMP with fluorescent detection further increases the detection sensitivity to as little as 100 RNA copies. We also note the shortcomings of some LAMP-based assays, including variable results with shorter reaction time or lower load of SARS-CoV-2, and false positive results in some experimental conditions and clinical saliva samples. Overall for RT-LAMP detection, the ORF1ab RdRP and ORF1ab nsp3 assays have faster kinetics for detection but varying degrees of false positives detection, whereas the Gene N assay exhibits no false positives in 30 min reaction time, which highlights the importance of optimal primer design to minimise false-positives in RT-LAMP. This study provides validation of the performance of LAMP-based assays as a rapid, highly sensitive detection method for SARS-CoV-2, which have important implications in development of point-of-care diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-021-01472-3
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.21.20248288: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    14971-15970, were synthesized as gBLOCK double stranded DNA fragments (Integrated DNA Technologies), as well as the 2019-nCoV_N positive control plasmid carrying the SARS-CoV-2 Gene N (GenBank:
    GenBank
    suggested: (GenBank, RRID:SCR_002760)
    RT-LAMP/LAMP colorimetric assay: Positive DNA or RNA controls were diluted to various concentrations and used in LAMP and RT-LAMP reactions respectively.
    LAMP
    suggested: (LAMP, RRID:SCR_001740)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.21.20248288 on medRxiv