RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Development and comparison of a novel multiple cross displacement amplification (MCDA) assay with other nucleic acid amplification methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.03.20206193
DO 10.1101/2020.10.03.20206193
A1 Wai Luu, Laurence Don
A1 Payne, Michael
A1 Zhang, Xiaomei
A1 Luo, Lijuan
A1 Lan, Ruiting
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/01/2020.10.03.20206193.abstract
AB The development of alternative isothermal amplification assays including multiple cross displacement amplification (MCDA) may address speed and portability limitations of real-time PCR (rt-PCR) methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We developed a novel SARS-CoV-2 MCDA assay and compared its speed and sensitivity to loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and rt-PCR. Two MCDA assays targeting SARS-CoV-2 N gene and ORF1ab was designed. The fastest time to detection and sensitivity of MCDA was compared to LAMP and rt-PCR using DNA standards and transcribed RNA. For N gene, MCDA was faster than LAMP and rt-PCR by 10 and 20 minutes, respectively with fastest time to detection at 5.2 minutes. rt-PCR had highest sensitivity with limit of detection at 10 copies/µl compared with MCDA (100 copies/µl) and LAMP (500 copies/µl). For ORF1ab, MCDA and LAMP had similar speed with fastest time to detection at 9.7 and 8.4 minutes, respectively. LAMP was more sensitive for ORF1ab detection with 50 copies/µl compared to MCDA (500 copies/µl). In conclusion, different nucleic acid amplification methods provide different advantages. MCDA is the fastest nucleic acid amplification method for SARS-CoV-2 while rt-PCR is the most sensitive. These advantages should be considered when determining the most suitable nucleic acid amplification methods for different applications.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a UNSW school research grant.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This research does not include clinical samples therefore no oversight approval was required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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).YesI 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.YesAll data is provided in the manuscript and/or in the supplementary materials.