Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2020 May 31;67(4):1485–1491. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13620

Recent progress on the diagnosis of 2019 Novel Coronavirus

Chun Li 1, Linzhu Ren 2,✉
PMCID: PMC7272792  PMID: 32395897

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has become a global pandemic. Therefore, convenient, timely and accurate detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 is urgently needed. Here, we review the types, characteristics and shortcomings of various detection methods, as well as perspectives for the SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis. Clinically, nucleic acid‐based methods are sensitive but prone to false‐positive. The antibody‐based method has slightly lower sensitivity but higher accuracy. Therefore, it is suggested to combine the two methods to improve the detection accuracy of COVID‐19.

Keywords: antibody, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19), detection, real‐time RT‐PCR, reverse transcription loop‐mediated isothermal amplification (RT‐LAMP), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (2019 Novel Coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2)

1. INTRODUCTION

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2, also known as 2019 novel coronavirus) is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern globally (Association, 2020; Li, Yang, & Ren, 2020; Paraskevis et al., 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) increased the assessment of COVID‐19 as a pandemic at a global level on 11 March 2020. Globally, as of 1 May 2020, more than 3,181,642 confirmed cases and 224,301 deaths caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were reported in more than 210 countries, territories or areas (https://covid19.who.int/). Therefore, due to the rapid spread of the diseases and the increasing number of patients, timely and accurate detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 is urgently needed.

Up until now, numerous groups have published methods for detecting the virus. However, the sensitivity and specificity of these methods are quite different. Besides, the false‐negative and false‐positive rates are relatively high due to possible errors in the sampling and testing process (Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Wang, 2020; Zhang & Li, 2020). In this short review, we summarize the types, characteristics and shortcomings of various detection methods, as well as perspectives for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection.

2. NUCLEOTIDE ACID‐BASED METHODS

2.1. Quantitative real‐time RT‐PCR

The most widely used methods are nucleotide acid‐based detection technology. As recommended by WHO, quantitative real‐time RT‐PCR (RT‐qPCR) is one of the commonly used techniques for virus detection, which has high sensitivity, rapid detection, and other desirable characteristics.

In the past two months, many scientific teams and companies have successively developed methods to detect SARS‐CoV‐2 (Chan et al., 2020; Chu et al., 2020; To et al., 2020), but different methods have different detection efficiency and some produce more false negatives (Table 1) (Wang, 2020; Zhang & Li, 2020). Therefore, improving the detection efficiency is one of the most important tasks at present. A one‐step RT‐qPCR targeting ORF1b or nucleocapsid (N) gene of SARS‐CoV‐2 can detect 10 copies/reaction of plasmid DNA or 2 × 10−4–2000 TCID50/reaction of RNA extracted from virus cultures (Chu et al., 2020). However, this method was designed to react with SARS‐CoV‐2 and its closely related viruses, such as SARS coronavirus (Chu et al., 2020), which may lead to false‐positive reactions for SARS‐CoV‐2 identification. Furthermore, Chan and colleagues developed a novel RT‐qPCR assay targeting the RNA‐dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)/helicase (Hel) of SARS‐CoV‐2 and found that the limit of detection (LOD) of the assay was 1.8 TCID50/ml with genomic RNA and 11.2 RNA copies/reaction with in vitro RNA transcripts, which has higher analytical sensitivity than the widely used RdRp‐P2 assay in European laboratories (Chan et al., 2020). Notably, the COVID‐19‐RdRp/Hel assay did not cross‐react with other human‐origin coronaviruses and respiratory pathogens (Chan et al., 2020), which can be used to differentiate SARS‐CoV‐2 and other respiratory pathogens. Using RT‐qPCR, Lin, Xiang, et al., (2020) and Yang, Yang, et al., (2020) compared detection efficiency of RT‐qPCR on throat swabs, nasal swabs and sputum specimens, and found that the positive rates of sputum specimens, nasal swabs and throat swabs were 74.4%–88.9%, 53.6%–73.3% and 44.2%, respectively. This suggests that samples collected from the lower respiratory tract increase the accuracy of diagnosis.

Table 1.

Comparisons of different detection methods currently available for SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis

Test Target gene/protein Sensitivity (limit of detection, LOD) Cross‐reactivity Positive rate Sample source in the literature Output References
DNA plasmids/RNA transcripts/RNA from culture lysate Clinical specimens
COVID‐19‐RdRp/Hel assay RNA‐dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)/helicase (Hel) 1.8 TCID50/ml genomic RNA from culture lysate, 11.2 RNA copies/reaction (in vitro viral RNA transcripts) 10–5 fold dilution of RNA, 3.21 × 104 RNA copies/ml NA 119/273 (43.6%) Nasopharyngeal aspirates/swabs and/or throat swabs, saliva specimens, sputum specimens, plasma specimens, faeces or rectal swabs Real‐Time PCR System Chan et al., (2020)
RdRp‐P2 assay RNA‐dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) 1.8 × 101 TCID50/ml RNA from culture lysate, 3.6 RNA copies/reaction (in vitro viral RNA transcripts) 10–4 fold dilution of RNA, 3.21 × 104 RNA copies/ml React with SARS‐CoV 77/273 (28.2%) Nasopharyngeal aspirates/swabs and/or throat swabs, saliva specimens, sputum specimens, plasma specimens, faeces or rectal swabs (partial efficiency) Real‐Time PCR System Chan et al., (2020)
RT‐qPCR S gene NA NA NA 91.7% Saliva Real‐Time PCR System To et al., (2020)
RT‐qPCR ORF1b and N gene 10 copies/reaction for plasmid, 2 × 10−4–2000 TCID50/reaction for RNA extracted from virus cultures NA NA NA NA Real‐Time PCR System Chu et al., (2020)
RT‐LAMP ORF1ab, N and E gene 4.8 copies/μl for synthetic RNA 1,000 RNA copies/ml (5 copies) Specific 99%–100% agreement with the commercial RT‐qPCR Throat and nasal swabs Real‐time turbidimeter, electrophoresis or Fluorescent Yang, Dang, et al. (2020), Zhang, Odiwuor, et al. (2020)
RT‐LAMP, iLACO ORF1ab gene 10 copies of synthesized RNA 2 μl sample loading (RNA concentration, 0.2–47 ng/μl) NA 97.6% (42/43) Respiratory samples Real‐time turbidimeter, electrophoresis or Fluorescent Yu et al., (2020)
RT‐LAMP Genomic RNA 1.02 fg genomic RNA NA Specific NA Simulated patient samples were generated by spiking serum, urine, saliva, oropharyngeal swabs, and nasopharyngeal swabs with a portion of the COVID‐19 nucleic Real‐time turbidimeter, electrophoresis or Fluorescent Lamb et al., (2020)
Closed‐tube Penn‐RAMP (COVID‐19 Penn‐RAMP) ORF1ab 7 copies of Synthesized DNA, 10 times higher than LAMP and RT‐PCR. NA Specific NA Nasal swabs Real‐time turbidimeter, electrophoresis or Fluorescent Mohamed et al., (2020)
CRISPR‐based methods S, N, E, RNase P, or ORF1ab genes 10 copies/μl for synthetic RNA/in vitro viral RNA transcripts NA NA NA Synthetic RNA/ in vitro viral RNA transcripts

Fluorescent or

lateral flow strip

 Metsky et al., (2020), Lucia et al., (2020), Zhang, Abudayyeh, et al. (2020), Broughton et al., (2020)

COVID IgM/IgG

antibodies kit

 IgM or/and IgG NA NA NA

Single detection: IgM, 60.61%–79.17%; IgG, 45.45%–66.67%.

Combination of IgM and IgG, 72.73%–87.50%.

 Blood Fluorescence intensity Jia et al., (2020)
Novel coronavirus IgG/IgM antibody ELISA IgM or/and IgG NA NA NA

Single detection: IgM, 44.4% (28/63), IgG, 82.54% (52/63).

Combination of IgM and IgG, 55/63 (87.3%)

 Serum samples Chromogenic reaction (OD450), GICA strip Xiang, Yan, et al. (2020)
Novel coronavirus IgG/IgM antibody GICA kits IgM or/and IgG NA NA NA

Single detection: IgM, 57.1% (52/91), IgG, 81.3% (74/91).

Combination of IgM and IgG, 75/91 (82.4%).

 Plasma samples Chromogenic reaction (OD450), GICA strip Xiang, Yan, et al. (2020)
Rapid IgM‐IgG Combined Antibody Test strip IgM and IgG NA NA NA 88.66%–94.83% Fingerstick blood, serum, and plasma of venous blood Lateral flow immunoassay, GICA strip Li, Yi, et al. (2020)
Peptide‐based Magnetic Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassay IgG or IgM, a synthetic peptide derived from S protein NA NA Specific IgG, 71.4% (197/276)–97.5% (78/80); IgM, 57.2% (158/276)–87.5% (21/24); Combination of IgM and IgG, 81.52% (225/276) Serum samples Luminescent immunoassay Cai et al., (), Lin, Liu, et al. (2020), Xiang, Wang, et al. (2020), Xiang, Yan, et al. (2020))
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CLIA, Chemiluminescence‐immunoassay; CRISPR, Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats; E, Envelope protein; ELISA, Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; fg, Femtogram; GICA, Colloidal gold immunochromatographic assa; LAMP, Loop‐mediated isothermal amplification; N, nucleocapsid phosphoprotein; NA, not applicable, or not analysed in the literature; RT, Reverse transcription; S, spike protein.

2.2. Reverse transcription loop‐mediated isothermal amplification

Another promising detection method based on nucleotide acid is the reverse transcription loop‐mediated isothermal amplification (RT‐LAMP) (Table 1) (Lamb, Bartolone, Ward, & Chancellor, 2020; Lucia, Federico, & Alejandra, 2020; Metsky, Freije, Kosoko‐Thoroddsen, Sabeti, & Myhrvold, 2020; Mohamed, Haim, & Jinzhao, 2020; Yang, Dang, et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020; Zhang, Odiwuor, et al., 2020).

The RT‐LAMP is performed in one step at 63°C isothermal conditions, and the results are obtained within 15–40 min, by targeting the ORF1ab, spike (S), envelope (E) or/and N gene of SARS‐CoV‐2 (Huang et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2020; Mohamed et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2020; Yang, Dang, et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020; Zhang, Odiwuor, et al., 2020). The assay can detect the virus in the throat and nasal swabs, with an LOD in the sample of about 5–10 RNA copies and 99%–100% agreement with the commercial RT‐qPCR (Yan et al., 2020; Yang, Dang, et al., 2020; Zhang, Odiwuor, et al., 2020). The RT‐LAMP result can be evaluated using real‐time turbidimeter, electrophoresis or fluorescent, which is faster and more convenient for clinical diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2. Moreover, to provide a rapid, highly sensitive molecular test for point‐of‐care, such as home, clinic and points of entry, a two‐stage isothermal amplification (COVID‐19 Penn‐RAMP) based on recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) at 38°C and LAMP at 63°C was developed by Mohamed and colleagues (Mohamed et al., 2020). Both processes of the COVID‐19 Penn‐RAMP can be performed in a closed tube followed by either fluorescence or colorimetric detection, with 10‐fold more sensitivity than COVID‐19 LAMP and COVID‐19 RT‐qPCR (Mohamed et al., 2020). Recent studies showed that an RT‐LAMP targeting the N gene of SARS‐CoV‐2 can specifically detect viral RNAs of SARS‐CoV‐2 but has no cross‐reactivity with related coronaviruses, such as HCoV‐229E, HCoV‐NL63, HCoV‐OC43 and MERS‐CoV, as well as human infectious influenza viruses (type B, H1N1pdm, H3N2, H5N1, H5N6, H5N8 and H7N9), and other respiratory disease‐causing viruses (RSVA, RSVB, ADV, PIV, MPV and HRV) (Baek et al., 2020). These results demonstrate that the RT‐LAMP method has a wider application market for SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis due to its relatively simple operation and low technical requirements for operators.

2.3. CRISPR‐based methods

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)‐based diagnostic platforms have also been developed for point‐of‐care nucleic acid detection, such as SHERLOCK or DETECTR (Table 1) (Broughton et al., 2020; Kostyusheva et al., 2020; Lucia et al., 2020; Metsky et al., 2020; Zhang, Abudayyeh, & Gootenberg, 2020).

The CRISPR‐based nucleic acid detection platforms combine recombinase polymerase amplification with CRISPR‐Cas enzymology for specific recognition of targeted DNA or RNA sequences (Kellner, Koob, Gootenberg, Abudayyeh, & Zhang, 2019; Myhrvold et al., 2018). It can sensitively detect as low as 10 copies/μL for synthetic RNA or in vitro viral RNA transcripts. The results of the CRISPR‐based methods can be analysed by fluorescent or lateral flow strip in <1 hr with a setup time of less than 15 min (Kellner et al., 2019). It can be used in areas at greatest risk of transmitting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, including airports, emergency departments and local community hospitals, particularly in low‐resource countries (Broughton et al., 2020; Zhang, Abudayyeh, et al., 2020). Moreover, Broughton and colleagues compared the workflow of the DETECTR, SHERLOCK and the RT‐qPCR recommended by CDC/WHO for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection and found that the LOD of these methods is 70–300 copies/µl, 10–100 copies/µl or 3.16–10 copies/µl input sample, respectively (Broughton et al., 2020). The assays can be finished in 30, 60 and 120 min, respectively (Broughton et al., 2020). These results suggest that RT‐qPCR is more sensitive than the CRISPR‐based assay, while the latter is more convenient and timesaving than RT‐qPCR. However, due to the lack of clinical detection samples, the sensitivity and specificity of the CRISPR‐based method needs further verification in the clinic.

3. ANTIBODY‐BASED METHODS

Although nucleotide acid‐based methods are the recommended methods by many groups and WHO, some experts have recently reported that the sensitivity of nucleic acid detection in SARS‐CoV‐2 is low, even as low as 42.10% (Cai et al., ; Jia et al., 2020; Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Wang, 2020; Zhang & Li, 2020). In some cases of nucleotide acid‐based detection, a positive result will appear after repeated negative tests. Nasopharyngeal or throat swabs are negative many times, but finally, positive results are detected in sputum specimens or respiratory lavage fluid samples (Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Wang, 2020; Zhang & Li, 2020). Moreover, there are several limitations in nucleotide acid‐based detections, such as long turnaround time, complex operation, expensive equipment and trained technicians (Cai et al., ; Li, Yi, et al., 2020). Therefore, many experts suggest using specific antibody detection as a supplement for nucleic acid detection, because the antibody‐based methods are relatively cheap, easy to operate and have low technical requirements (Table 1).

To date, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence‐immunoassay (CLIA) are the most commonly used methods for detection of SARS‐CoV‐2. As reported, antibody‐based methods targeting IgG and IgM induced by the recombinant N and S proteins of SARS‐CoV‐2 are consistent with the results obtained by nucleic acid‐based assay (Cai et al., ; Jia et al., 2020; Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Lin, Liu, et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2020). Furthermore, the receptor‐binding domain (RBD) of the viral S protein showed a better antigenicity than that of the viral N protein for the diagnosis of SARA‐CoV‐2 infection (Ma et al., 2020). Moreover, a recent report showed that IgA level in patient serum is positively correlated with the severity of the COVID‐19 (Ma et al., 2020), indicating that serum IgA can also be used as a biological marker for the COVID‐19 identification.

The sensitivities of IgG and IgM‐targeted methods were >71.4% and >57.2%, or even up to 97.5% and 87.5%, respectively (Cai et al., ; Jia et al., 2020; Lin, Liu, et al., 2020; Xiang, Wang, et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020). It was reported that ELISA is superior to lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) in specific detection and quantification of SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM and IgG, and is highly sensitive to IgG 10 days after symptoms appear (Adams et al., 2020). Notably, the sensitivities of RBD‐specific IgA, IgM and IgG were 98.6%, 96.8% and 96.8%, and the specificities of RBD‐specific IgA, IgM and IgG were 98.1%, 92.3% and 99.8%, respectively (Ma et al., 2020). Recently, Lin et al. found that serological CLIA based on the recombinant N protein of SARS‐CoV‐2 had a higher performance for diagnosis of COVID‐19 than that of the commercial ELISA kit, with more reliable sensitivity and specificity of 82.28% and 97.5%, respectively (Lin, Liu, et al., 2020). Therefore, antibody‐based methods are also effective methods to detect COVID‐19.

To improve the detection efficiency, several groups developed antibody‐based methods for simultaneous detection of IgG and IgM (Guo et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2020; Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020) and found that the sensitivity of test detecting IgM and IgG simultaneously was significantly higher than the nucleic acid, IgM or IgG single detection (Jia et al., 2020). The sensitivities of ELISA and GICA for simultaneous detection of IgM and IgG antibodies were 87.3% and 82.4%, respectively, with 90.63%–100% specificity (Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020). Besides, the IgA/IgG or IgA/IgM/IgG combination can provide improved diagnostic reliability compared to conventional IgM/IgG combinations (Ma et al., 2020).

Clinically, specific IgA and IgM against SARS‐CoV‐2 can be detected 7 days after virus infection or 3–4 days after symptoms appear, and specific IgG of the virus appears in 7–10 days after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (Adams et al., 2020; Cai et al., ; Guo et al., 2020; Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Xiang, Wang, et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020). The median concentrations of IgA and IgM reached a peak of 8.84 and 7.25 μg/ml at 16–20 days after onset, respectively (Adams et al., 2020). IgG titres increased within 3 weeks after symptoms appeared and the median concentration reached a peak of 16.47 μg/ml in 21–25 days after onset and began to decrease at the 8th week, but remained above the detection threshold (Adams et al., 2020). For patients of different stages, the sensitivities of GICA strips targeting viral IgM or IgG antibody were 11.1%, 92.9% and 96.8% for the nucleic acid confirmed cases of the early (1–7 days after onset), middle (8–14 days after onset) and late stage of the COVID‐19 (over 15 days), respectively (Pan et al., 2020). These results suggest that antibody detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 can be performed in the middle to later stages of COVID‐19.

Generally, a clinical diagnosis can be finalized in as little as 5–15 min via antibody‐based methods (especially by commonly used serological GICA strip), using different types of blood samples, such as fingerstick blood, serum and plasma of venous blood (Cai et al., ; Jia et al., 2020; Li, Yi, et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2020; Xiang, Yan, et al., 2020). Therefore, combined with nucleic acid detection, the detection of virus‐specific antibody can significantly reduce "false negatives" of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at the clinical level.

4. OPTIMIZATION OF THE SAMPLING METHODS

It is worth noting that the nucleic acid‐based methods need to extract nucleic acid in advance, which is a labour‐intensive and time‐consuming operation and also has risks of affecting nucleic acid extraction, thus misleading the diagnosis (Zhao et al., ). To overcome this problem, a virus RNA extraction method was developed based on poly (amino ester) and carboxyl‐coated magnetic nanoparticles, which combines the lysis and binding steps into one step and can be directly incorporated into RT‐qPCR or RT‐LAMP (Zhao et al., 2020). The simplified method can purify viral RNA from multiple samples in 20 min (Zhao et al., ).

Moreover, to obtain the virus effectively, it is usually necessary to collect respiratory tract samples, such as nasopharyngeal aspirates/swabs or throat swabs. As reported by Wu et al., the positive predictive values of RT‐qPCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 in sputum, nasopharyngeal swab, blood, anal swabs, faeces are 48.68% (148/304), 38.13% (180/472), 3.03% (4/132), 10.00% (12/120) and 9.83% (24/244) (Wu et al., 2020). However, collecting samples from the respiratory tract, especially low respiratory tract, might pose a risk of virus transmission to the healthcare workers. Thus, To and colleagues evaluated saliva viral load and found that live SARS‐CoV‐2 could be detected in the initial saliva specimens of 11 patients (91.7%), suggesting saliva is also a promising non‐invasive specimen for diagnosis and monitoring of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (To et al., 2020). Zhang et al. found nucleic acid detection of COVID‐19 in faecal specimens was equally accurate to that of pharyngeal swab specimens (Zhang, Wang, & Xue, 2020). Chen and colleagues found SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleic acid could be detected in the serum of the patients, and serum SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load (RNAaemia) is closely associated with drastically increased interleukin 6 (IL‐6) level in critically ill patients (Chen et al., 2020), indicating RNAaemia and IL‐6 can be used to predict the poor prognosis for COVID‐19 patients. These results are conducive to the selection of specimens and improvement of the accuracy of diagnosis. However, only certified health laboratories with professionals and specialized equipment can carry out relevant experimental operations, especially nucleic acid extraction, which will prolong the diagnosis time and delay the treatment and control of the disease.

5. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE

In conclusion, nucleic acid‐based methods are sensitive, but prone to false‐positive. The sensitivity of the antibody‐based method is slightly lower, but the accuracy is higher. Therefore, it is suggested that the two methods should be combined to improve the detection accuracy of COVID‐19. Moreover, developing a risk‐free sample preparation method for detection is one of the urgent tasks to be solved at present. Also, because a few recovered patients that have been discharged from hospitals have tested positive in nucleic acid tests, it is still necessary to develop new sensitive and specific detection methods for the confirmation of virus‐infected persons, carriers and recovered patients. At the same time, the establishment of a differentiation method between SARS‐CoV‐2 and other respiratory viruses is also urgently needed.

Notably, SARS‐CoV‐2 is a zoonotic virus, but the host spectrum of the virus is still controversial. As reported, the virus was detected not only in humans, but also in dogs, ferrets, domestic cats, tigers and lions (Gollakner & Capua, 2020; Shi et al., 2020), while a survey by Deng et al. showed that dogs and cats remained serologically negative to SARS‐CoV‐2 (Deng et al., 2020). However, sequence analysis of angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor between humans and animals indicates a low species barrier for transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 to farm animals (Sun et al., 2020), demonstrating the virus might infect other species, especially pets and farm animals, from humans and vice versa. Therefore, it is also necessary to monitor SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in pets and domestic animals.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

No ethical approval was required as this is a review article with no original research data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFD0500103), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31772747), and the Science and Technology Research Program during the 13th Five‐Year Plan Period of Jilin Educational Committee (No. JJKH20190172KJ).

Li C, Ren L. Recent progress on the diagnosis of 2019 Novel Coronavirus. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020;67:1485–1491. 10.1111/tbed.13620

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, E. R. , Ainsworth, M. , Anand, R. , Andersson, M. I. , Auckland, K. , Baillie, J. K. , … Whitehouse, J. (2020). Antibody testing for COVID‐19: A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel. medRxiv, 2020.04.15.20066407. 10.1101/2020.04.15.20066407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Association, S. E. G. f. C. o. t. E. o. N. C. P. o. t. C. P. M (2020). An update on the epidemiological characteristics of novel coronavirus pneumonia(COVID‐19). Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi, 41, 139–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baek, Y. H. , Um, J. , Antigua, K. J. C. , Park, J. H. , Kim, Y. , Oh, S. , … Song, M. S. (2020). Development of a reverse transcription‐loop‐mediated isothermal amplification as a rapid early‐detection method for novel SARS‐CoV‐2. Emerging Microbes & Infections, 9, 1–31. 10.1080/22221751.2020.1756698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Broughton, J. P. , Deng, W. , Fasching, C. L. , Singh, J. , Chiu, C. Y. , & Chen, J. S. (2020). A protocol for rapid detection of the 2019 novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 using CRISPR diagnostics: SARS‐CoV‐2 DETECTR. Available: https://mammoth.bio/wp‐content/uploads/2020/02/A‐protocol‐for‐rapid‐detection‐of‐the‐2019‐novel‐coronavirus‐SARS‐CoV‐2‐using‐CRISPR‐diagnostics‐SARS‐CoV‐2‐DETECTR.pdf [Google Scholar]
  5. Cai, X. , Chen, J. , Hu, J. , Long, Q. , Deng, H. , Fan, K. , & Wang, D. (2020). A peptide‐based magnetic chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay for serological diagnosis of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). medRxiv, 2020.2002.2022.20026617. 10.1101/2020.02.22.20026617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chan, J. F. , Yip, C. C. , To, K. K. , Tang, T. H. , Wong, S. C. , Leung, K. H. , … Yuen, K. Y. (2020). Improved molecular diagnosis of COVID‐19 by the novel, highly sensitive and specific COVID‐19‐RdRp/Hel real‐time reverse transcription‐PCR assay validated in vitro and with clinical specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 58, 310–320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, X. , Zhao, B. , Qu, Y. , Chen, Y. , Xiong, J. , Feng, Y. , … Li, F. (2020). Detectable serum SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load (RNAaemia) is closely associated with drastically elevated interleukin 6 (IL‐6) level in critically ill COVID‐19 patients. medRxiv, 2020.2002.2029.20029520. 10.1101/2020.02.29.20029520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chu, D. K. W. , Pan, Y. , Cheng, S. M. S. , Hui, K. P. Y. , Krishnan, P. , Liu, Y. , … Poon, L. L. M. (2020). Molecular diagnosis of a novel Coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) causing an outbreak of pneumonia. Clinical Chemistry, 66, 549–555. 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Deng, J. , Jin, Y. , Liu, Y. , Sun, J. , Hao, L. , Bai, J. , … Tian, K. (2020). Serological survey of SARS‐CoV‐2 for experimental, domestic, companion and wild animals excludes intermediate hosts of 35 different species of animals. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 67, 1745–1749. 10.1111/tbed.13577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gollakner, R. , & Capua, I. (2020). Is COVID‐19 the first pandemic that evolves into a panzootic? Veterinaria Italiana, 56, 7–8. 10.12834/VetIt.2246.12523.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Guo, L. , Ren, L. , Yang, S. , Xiao, M. , Chang, D. , Yang, F. , … Wang, J. (2020). Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 70, ciaa310. 10.1093/cid/ciaa310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, W. E. , Lim, B. , Hsu, C.‐C. , Xiong, D. , Wu, W. , Yu, Y. , … Cui, Z. (2020). RT‐LAMP for rapid diagnosis of coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2. Microbial Biotechnology, 13, 13586. 10.1111/1751-7915.13586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jia, X. , Zhang, P. , Tian, Y. , Wang, J. , Zeng, H. , Wang, J. , … Liu, Y. (2020). Clinical significance of IgM and IgG test for diagnosis of highly suspected COVID‐19 infection. medRxiv, 2020.2002.2028.20029025. 10.1101/2020.02.28.20029025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kellner, M. J. , Koob, J. G. , Gootenberg, J. S. , Abudayyeh, O. O. , & Zhang, F. (2019). SHERLOCK: Nucleic acid detection with CRISPR nucleases. Nature Protocols, 14, 2986–3012. 10.1038/s41596-019-0210-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kostyusheva, A. , Brezgin, S. , Babin, Y. , Vasil'eva, I. , Kostyushev, D. , & Chulanov, V. (2020). CRISPR‐Cas Systems for Diagnosing Infectious Diseases. Preprints, 2020020007. 10.20944/preprints202002.0007.v1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lamb, L. E. , Bartolone, S. N. , Ward, E. , & Chancellor, M. B. (2020). Rapid detection of novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) by reverse transcription‐loop‐mediated isothermal amplification. medRxiv, 2020.2002.2019.20025155. 10.1101/2020.02.19.20025155 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, C. , Yang, Y. , & Ren, L. (2020). Genetic evolution analysis of 2019 novel coronavirus and coronavirus from other species. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 82, 104285. 10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, Z. , Yi, Y. , Luo, X. , Xiong, N. , Liu, Y. , Li, S. , … Ye, F. (2020). Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM‐IgG combined antibody test for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection diagnosis. Journal of Medical Virology, 92, 1–8. 10.1002/jmv.25727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lin, C. , Xiang, J. , Yan, M. , Li, H. , Huang, S. , & Shen, C. (2020). Comparison of throat swabs and sputum specimens for viral nucleic acid detection in 52 cases of novel coronavirus (SARS‐Cov‐2)‐infected pneumonia (COVID‐19). Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 58, 20200187. 10.1515/cclm-2020-0187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, D. , Liu, L. , Zhang, M. , Hu, Y. , Yang, Q. , Guo, J. , … Zhang, Z. (2020). Evaluations of serological test in the diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) infections during the COVID‐19 outbreak. medRxiv, 2020.2003.2027.20045153. 10.1101/2020.03.27.20045153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lucia, C. , Federico, P.‐B. , & Alejandra, G. C. (2020). An ultrasensitive, rapid, and portable coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 sequence detection method based on CRISPR‐Cas12. bioRxiv, 2020.2002.2029.971127. 10.1101/2020.02.29.971127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ma, H. , Zeng, W. , He, H. , Zhao, D. , Yang, Y. , Jiang, D. , … Jin, T. (2020). COVID‐19 diagnosis and study of serum SARS‐CoV‐2 specific IgA, IgM and IgG by a quantitative and sensitive immunoassay. medRxiv, 2020.2004.2017.20064907. 10.1101/2020.04.17.20064907 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Metsky, H. C. , Freije, C. A. , Kosoko‐Thoroddsen, T.‐S.‐ F. , Sabeti, P. C. , & Myhrvold, C. (2020). CRISPR‐based surveillance for COVID‐19 using genomically‐comprehensive machine learning design. bioRxiv, 2020.2002.2026.967026. 10.1101/2020.02.26.967026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mohamed, E.‐T.‐ B. , Haim, H. , & Jinzhao, S. (2020). A single and two‐stage, closed‐tube, molecular test for the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID‐19) at home, clinic, and points of entry. ChemRxiv. 10.26434/chemrxiv.11860137.v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Myhrvold, C. , Freije, C. A. , Gootenberg, J. S. , Abudayyeh, O. O. , Metsky, H. C. , Durbin, A. F. , … Sabeti, P. C. (2018). Field‐deployable viral diagnostics using CRISPR‐Cas13. Science, 360, 444–448. 10.1126/science.aas8836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pan, Y. , Li, X. , Yang, G. , Fan, J. , Tang, Y. , Zhao, J. , … Li, Y. (2020). Serological immunochromatographic approach in diagnosis with SARS‐CoV‐2 infected COVID‐19 patients. The Journal of Infection, S0163‐4453(20)30175‐4. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Paraskevis, D. , Kostaki, E. G. , Magiorkinis, G. , Panayiotakopoulos, G. , Sourvinos, G. , & Tsiodras, S. (2020). Full‐genome evolutionary analysis of the novel corona virus (2019‐nCoV) rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 79, 104212. 10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104212 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Shi, J. , Wen, Z. , Zhong, G. , Yang, H. , Wang, C. , Huang, B. , … Bu, Z. (2020). Susceptibility of ferrets, cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals to SARS–coronavirus 2. Science (New York, N.Y.), eabb7015. 10.1126/science.abb7015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun, J. , He, W.‐T. , Wang, L. , Lai, A. , Ji, X. , Zhai, X. , … Su, S. (2020). COVID‐19: Epidemiology, evolution, and cross‐disciplinary perspectives. Trends in Molecular Medicine. 26(5), 483–495. 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.02.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. To, K. K. , Tsang, O. T. , Chik‐Yan Yip, C. , Chan, K. H. , Wu, T. C. , Chan, J. M. C. , … Yuen, K. Y. (2020). Consistent detection of 2019 novel coronavirus in saliva. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 70, ciaa149. 10.1093/cid/ciaa149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, C. B. (2020). Analysis of low positive rate of nucleic acid detection method used for diagnosis of novel coronavirus pneumonia. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi, 100, E010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wu, J. , Liu, J. , Li, S. , Peng, Z. , Xiao, Z. , Wang, X. , … Luo, J. (2020). Detection and analysis of nucleic acid in various biological samples of COVID‐19 patients. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 101673. 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Xiang, F. , Wang, X. , He, X. , Peng, Z. , Yang, B. , Zhang, J. , … Ma, W. L. (2020). Antibody detection and dynamic characteristics in patients with COVID‐19. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 70, ciaa461 10.1093/cid/ciaa461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Xiang, J. , Yan, M. , Li, H. , Liu, T. , Lin, C. , Huang, S. , & Shen, C. (2020). Evaluation of enzyme‐linked immunoassay and colloidal gold‐ immunochromatographic assay kit for detection of novel coronavirus (SARS‐Cov‐2) causing an outbreak of pneumonia (COVID‐19). ): medRxiv, 2020.2002.2027.20028787. 10.1101/2020.02.27.20028787. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Yan, C. , Cui, J. , Huang, L. , Du, B. , Chen, L. , Xue, G. , … Yuan, J. (2020). Rapid and visual detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) by a reverse transcription loop‐mediated isothermal amplification assay. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, S1198‐743X(20)30186‐5. 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Yang, W. , Dang, X. , Wang, Q. , Xu, M. , Zhao, Q. , Zhou, Y. , … Wang, Y. (2020). Rapid Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 Using Reverse transcription RT‐LAMP method. medRxiv, 2020.2003.2002.20030130. 10.1101/2020.03.02.20030130 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, Y. , Yang, M. , Shen, C. , Wang, F. , Yuan, J. , Li, J. , … Liu, Y. (2020). Evaluating the accuracy of different respiratory specimens in the laboratory diagnosis and monitoring the viral shedding of 2019‐nCoV infections. ): medRxiv, 2020.2002.2011.20021493. 10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Yu, L. , Wu, S. , Hao, X. , Li, X. , Liu, X. , Ye, S. , … Yin, X. (2020). Rapid colorimetric detection of COVID‐19 coronavirus using a reverse transcriptional loop‐mediated isothermal amplification (RT‐LAMP) diagnostic plat‐form: iLACO. medRxiv, 2020.2002.2020.20025874. 10.1101/2020.02.20.20025874 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang, F. , Abudayyeh, O. O. , & Gootenberg, J. S. (2020): A protocol for detection of COVID‐19 using CRISPR diagnostics. Available: https://www.broadinstitute.org/files/publications/special/COVID‐19%20detection%20(updated).pdf [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, J. , Wang, S. , & Xue, Y. (2020). Fecal specimen diagnosis 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. Journal of Medical Virology, 92(6), 680–682. 10.1002/jmv.25742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang, R. , & Li, J. M. (2020). The way to reduce the "false negative results" of 2019 novel coronavirus nucleic acid detection. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi, 100, E008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, Y. , Odiwuor, N. , Xiong, J. , Sun, L. , Nyaruaba, R. O. , Wei, H. , & Tanner, N. A. (2020). Rapid Molecular Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) Virus RNA Using Colorimetric LAMP. ): medRxiv, 2020.2002.2026.20028373. 10.1101/2020.02.26.20028373. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhao, Z. , Cui, H. , Song, W. , Ru, X. , Zhou, W. , & Yu, X. (2020). A simple magnetic nanoparticles‐based viral RNA extraction method for efficient detection of SARS‐CoV‐2. . bioRxiv, 2020.2002.2022.961268. 10.1101/2020.02.22.961268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhong, L. , Chuan, J. , Gong, B. , Shuai, P. , Zhou, Y. , Zhang, Y. , … Yang, Z. (2020). Detection of serum IgM and IgG for COVID‐19 diagnosis. Science China Life Sciences, 63, 777–780. 10.1007/s11427-020-1688-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Articles from Transboundary and Emerging Diseases are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES