Table 1.
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 detection methods.
| RNA extraction and RT-qPCR | DETECTR RT-LAMP/Cas12a | Direct sample to RT-LAMP | Cap-RT-iLAMP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Corman et al. | Broughton et al. | Dao Thi et al., Buck et al. | This study |
| Sample-to-result time | 4 h | 45 min | 30 min | 55 min |
| Reagent price | $$$ | $$ | $ | $ |
| Bulky equipment | Yes | No | No | No |
| Limit of detection | 1 copy | 10 copies | 100–500 copies | 100–500 copies (eq.-5–25 copies per µl sample liquid before capture) |
| Inhibitor removal | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Sporadic false positives | No | No | Yes | No |
| Open-lid cross-contamination | No | Yes | No | No |
| Assay result detection | Fluorescence (FAM) | Colorimetric (FAM) | Colorimetric (pH-dye) | Colorimetric (cap SYBR Green I) |
| Helicase or PPase addable | Not applicable | Yes | No | Yes |
| Assay result scoring | Quantitative Ct value | Lateral flow | Subjective visual scoring | Smartphone → quantitative hue |
Ten important aspects of different published SARS-CoV-2 detection methods and Cap-iLAMP are compared.