Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemics. To facilitate the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, various RT-LAMP assays using 19 sets of primers had been developed, but never been compared. We performed comparative evaluation of the 19 sets of primers using 4 RNA standards and 29 clinical samples from COVID-19 patients. Six of 15 sets of primers were firstly identified to have faster amplification when tested with four RNA standards, and were further subjected to parallel comparison with the remaining four primer sets using 29 clinical samples. Among these 10 primer sets, Set-4 had the highest positive detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 (82.8%), followed by Set-10, Set-11, Set-13 and Set-14 (75.9%), and Set-14 showed the fastest amplification speed (< 8.5 minutes), followed by Set-17 (< 12.5 minutes). Based on the overall detection performance, Set-4, Set-10, Set-11, Set-13, Set-14 and Set-17 that target Nsp3, S, S, E, N and N gene regions of SARS-CoV-2, respectively, are determined to be better than the other primer sets. Two RT-LAMP assays with the Set-14 primers in combination with any one of four other primer sets (Set-4, Set-10, Set-11, and Set-13) are recommended to be used in the COVID-19 surveillance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by the grants from the National Science and Technology Major Project of China (2019YFC1200603, 2017ZX10103009-002 and 2018ZX10711001)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
E2020002: 3 February 2020
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The all datas from the study have been uploaded.