Development and application of sensitive, specific, and rapid CRISPR-Cas13-based diagnosis.

Nucleic acid detection is a necessary part of medical treatment and fieldwork. However, the current detection technologies are far from ideal. A lack of timely and accessible testing for identifying cases and close contacts has allowed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative virus of the ongoing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to spread uncontrollably. The slow and expensive detection of mutations-predictors for chronic diseases such as cancer-form a barrier to personalized treatment. A recently developed diagnostic assay is ideal and field-ready-it relies on CRISPR-Cas13. CRISPR-Cas13 works similarly to other CRISPR systems: Cas13 is guided by a crRNA to cleave next to a specific RNA target sequence. Additionally, Cas13 boasts a unique collateral cleavage activity; collateral cleavage of a fluorescent reporter detects the presence of the target sequence in sample RNA. This system forms the basis of CRISPR-Cas13 diagnostic assays. CRISPR-Cas13 assays have >95% sensitivity and >99% specificity. Detection is rapid (<2 h), inexpensive ($0.05 per test), and portable-a test using lateral flow strips is akin to a pregnancy test. The recent adaptation of micro-well chips facilitates high-level multiplexing and is high-throughput. In this review, we cover the development of CRISPR-Cas13 assays for medical diagnosis, discuss the advantages of CRISPR-Cas13-based diagnosis over the traditional reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and present examples of detection from real patient samples.

Current state of diagnostic, screening and surveillance testing methods for COVID-19 from an analytical chemistry point of view.

Since December 2019, we have been in the battlefield with a new threat to the humanity known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this review, we describe the four main methods used for diagnosis, screening and/or surveillance of SARS-CoV-2: Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); chest computed tomography (CT); and different complementary alternatives developed in order to obtain rapid results, antigen and antibody detection. All of them compare the highlighting advantages and disadvantages from an analytical point of view. The gold standard method in terms of sensitivity and specificity is the RT-PCR. The different modifications propose to make it more rapid and applicable at point of care (POC) are also presented and discussed. CT images are limited to central hospitals. However, being combined with RT-PCR is the most robust and accurate way to confirm COVID-19 infection. Antibody tests, although unable to provide reliable results on the status of the infection, are suitable for carrying out maximum screening of the population in order to know the immune capacity. More recently, antigen tests, less sensitive than RT-PCR, have been authorized to determine in a quicker way whether the patient is infected at the time of analysis and without the need of specific instruments.

Ravaging SARS-CoV-2: rudimentary diagnosis and puzzling immunological responses.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, the first COVID-19 case, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China. The SARS-CoV-2 rapidly disseminated throughout the world via community spread, acquiring pandemic status with significant fatality. OBSERVATIONS: Rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was soon perceived critical for arresting community spread and effective therapy development. Human SARS-CoV-2 infection can be diagnosed either by nucleic acid identification or specific antibody detection. Contrary to nucleic acid identification confirmed active SARS-CoV-2 infection; antibody detection confirms a past infection, even in asymptomatic subjects. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies augment the ability to effectively counter the virus. A crucial hurdle limiting the steadfast implementation of antibody detection is the time required for threshold B lymphocyte population generation. This process is dependent on precise antigen recognition and MHC class I molecules presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, nucleic acid and antibody dependent tests complement each other in identifying human SARS-CoV-2 infection and shaping up subsequent immunological responses. This article discusses the complimentary association of nucleic acid identification (corresponding to an active infection) and antibody testing (the yester CoV-2 infection vulnerability) as the diagnostic and screening measures of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Highlights Nucleic acid (RNA) identification and specific antibody detection against SARS-CoV-2 are the noted diagnostic mechanisms for screening human SARS-CoV-2 infection. While nucleic acid identification screens prevailing SARS-CoV-2 infection, detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies signifies a past infection, even in asymptomatic subjects. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 provide a potential therapeutic option via transfer from antibody rich plasma of a recovered subject to an infected individual. Nucleic acid identification may not absolutely confirm the infection because of frequent SARS-CoV-2 genome mutations and possible technical errors, while specific antibody detection also needs at least (8-14) days for detectable screening of B-cell generated antibodies. Nucleic acid and antibody tests are complementary to each other as an early stage diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 infection and possible therapy (antibodies). Sufferers with a high clinical suspicion but negative RT-PCR screening could be examined via combined imaging and repeated swab test.