3 ms·

I was under the impression CRISPR can actually be used for testing purposes as well? Are traditional test methods more accurate?

igor47 7y ago
it would probably be some sort of PCR, probably something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymerase_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymera... edit: yup: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-detection-instructions.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-detecti...
- syntaxing 7y ago
  Thanks for the links! I never knew how they did these tests.
  - Accujack 7y ago
    The "standard" test so far is to isolate the RNA of the virus, use that RNA to form DNA, then replicate the DNA using PCR to check it against example serums or antibodies. There are several problems with this, not the least of which is the time involved with testing. PCR replication needs thermal cycling, which takes some time, and it seems like the CDC is having some issues providing reagents (read: the sample to compare against) that give a clear result. So, FDA go-ahead would let the various organizations develop their own tests, which would be a good thing. What's really needed is a definitive way to test someone and get results within an hour or so, the faster the better. Barring that, even a quick test that gives a clear negative result would be good - either no, the virus is not present or maybe it is. In the case of the latter, a slow follow-up could be done.
rotexo 7y ago
There are emerging CRISPR-based diagnostic tools, but they are still very experimental and novel. I wouldn’t be surprised if a rollout took almost as long as a vaccine. https://mammoth.bio/2020/02/15/white-paper-a-protocol-for-rapid-detection-of-sars-cov-2-using-crispr-sars-cov-2-detectr/ https://mammoth.bio/2020/02/15/white-paper-a-protocol-for-ra...

igor47 7y ago

it would probably be some sort of PCR, probably something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymerase_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymera... edit: yup: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-detection-instructions.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-detecti...

syntaxing 7y ago
Thanks for the links! I never knew how they did these tests.
- Accujack 7y ago
  The "standard" test so far is to isolate the RNA of the virus, use that RNA to form DNA, then replicate the DNA using PCR to check it against example serums or antibodies. There are several problems with this, not the least of which is the time involved with testing. PCR replication needs thermal cycling, which takes some time, and it seems like the CDC is having some issues providing reagents (read: the sample to compare against) that give a clear result. So, FDA go-ahead would let the various organizations develop their own tests, which would be a good thing. What's really needed is a definitive way to test someone and get results within an hour or so, the faster the better. Barring that, even a quick test that gives a clear negative result would be good - either no, the virus is not present or maybe it is. In the case of the latter, a slow follow-up could be done.

rotexo 7y ago

There are emerging CRISPR-based diagnostic tools, but they are still very experimental and novel. I wouldn’t be surprised if a rollout took almost as long as a vaccine. https://mammoth.bio/2020/02/15/white-paper-a-protocol-for-rapid-detection-of-sars-cov-2-using-crispr-sars-cov-2-detectr/ https://mammoth.bio/2020/02/15/white-paper-a-protocol-for-ra...