SLAMP: A Rapid Fluorometric RT-LAMP Assay for Sensitive and Specific Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from Human Saliva
Bikos, D. A.; Hwang, C.; Brileya, K. A.; Parker, A.; Loveday, E. K.; Rodriguez, M.; LeFevre, T.; Thornton, I.; Wilking, J. N.; Dills, M.; Walk, S. T.; Adams, A. K.; Plowright, R.; Hoegh, A. B.; Carter, J. R.; Morrow, J.; Taylor, M.; Keil, D.; Fields, M. W.; Chang, C. B.
Show abstract
BackgroundDiagnostic testing can identify outbreaks and inform preventive strategies for slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. The "gold standard" method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 is reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) performed on samples collected using nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. While NP RT-qPCR achieves high sensitivity, it requires trained personnel to administer and suffers from lengthy time-to-result. Instead, rapid saliva-based reverse transcription loop-mediated amplification (RT-LAMP) screening methods may offer advantages in sample collection and speed. MethodsRegardless of symptomatic presentation, a total of 233 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using NP RT-qPCR, alongside saliva-based RT-qPCR (SalivirDetect) and RT-LAMP (SLAMP), a simple and rapid fluorometric RT-LAMP assay performed directly on heat-inactivated saliva without any additional treatments or RNA extraction. SLAMP is conducted in triplicate and takes 45 min. Samples found negative using both saliva-based methods but positive under CDC NP RT-qPCR above the saliva method LoD were excluded from evaluation, suggesting significant differences in viral titer between sampling sites. Individuals who consumed potential inhibitors in the form of food, drink, and oral health products within 30 min of sampling were identified using a self-reported questionnaire. ResultsOf the 233 NP RT-qPCR tests, 58 were positive and 175 were negative. Comparatively, SLAMP resulted in 95% sensitivity and 98% specificity and SalivirDetect 97% sensitivity and 98% specificity. Prior consumption had no measurable effect on test outcomes, except for drinking, which lowered Ct values in saliva. ConclusionsSLAMP requires less technician and instrument time than CDC-approved NP RT-qPCR and demonstrates that saliva-based RT-LAMP can enable frequent and rapid identification of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections with high sensitivity and specificity.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation of a rapid, saliva-based, and ultra-sensitive SARS-CoV-2 screening system for a pandemic-scale infection surveillance 98%
- Sensitive detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva 97%
- Performance evaluation of a non-invasive one-step multiplex RT-qPCR assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 direct from human saliva 97%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- WHotLAMP: A simple, inexpensive, and sensitive molecular test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva 99%
- Development and Implementation of a Simple and Rapid Extraction-Free Saliva SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Workflow for Workplace Surveillance 98%
- Robotic RNA extraction for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance using saliva samples 98%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral-load curves in paired saliva and nasal swabs inform appropriate respiratory sampling site and analytical test sensitivity required for earliest viral detection 96%
- Pooled Saliva Specimens for SARS-CoV-2 Testing 96%
- Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in oral fluids 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.