5 ms·

Impressive that it catches the virus even in a highly diluted sample. I'm trying to figure out if this also works faster than other tests? Can't tell from the e

Impressive that it catches the virus even in a highly diluted sample. I'm trying to figure out if this also works faster than other tests? Can't tell from the excerpt.

spuz 6y ago
If you look at figure 2a, it looks like they are dropping successively more concentrated samples of SARS-CoV-2 onto the sensor and getting immediate spikes in the response. But it's not clear whether or not this technology could be developed into something that can be used at home or in the field. That is the real challenge you need to overcome in order to make a test with a quick response. Packaging a sample, sending it to a lab, getting a technician to put the sample through the test, recording the result and communicating it back to the patient - that is what takes time not the actual performance of the test itself.
- usrusr 6y ago
  > successively more concentrated samples Good observation, I saw that but completely failed to consider the ascending nature in my assessment in my first post. So reusability would have an upper bound at the first positive. Could still be an incredibly valuable addition to the using Arsenal of they manage to shape a deployable product around the technology (ed if it turns out to be a car-sized behemoth, if the throughput is right)
usrusr 6y ago
Detecting spike protein omits the unwrapping steps that are part of the PCR test protocol. And this test appears to be formalized for saliva from the start, which is far more practical than throat swabbing. Some studies indicate that PCR would very similar results if it was switched to saliva, but that would require recertification. Switching would probably be a net negative because swabbing is far from the only bottleneck and because protocol change artifacts would taint statistics.
Ensorceled 6y ago
The graphs suggest results in minutes, especially graphs 3a and 3b. Unclear on amount of setup and cleanup between tests but 3a also suggests good results by adding a second sample to a test in progress.

Impressive that it catches the virus even in a highly diluted sample. I'm trying to figure out if this also works faster than other tests? Can't tell from the excerpt.

spuz 6y ago

If you look at figure 2a, it looks like they are dropping successively more concentrated samples of SARS-CoV-2 onto the sensor and getting immediate spikes in the response. But it's not clear whether or not this technology could be developed into something that can be used at home or in the field. That is the real challenge you need to overcome in order to make a test with a quick response. Packaging a sample, sending it to a lab, getting a technician to put the sample through the test, recording the result and communicating it back to the patient - that is what takes time not the actual performance of the test itself.

usrusr 6y ago
> successively more concentrated samples Good observation, I saw that but completely failed to consider the ascending nature in my assessment in my first post. So reusability would have an upper bound at the first positive. Could still be an incredibly valuable addition to the using Arsenal of they manage to shape a deployable product around the technology (ed if it turns out to be a car-sized behemoth, if the throughput is right)

usrusr 6y ago

Detecting spike protein omits the unwrapping steps that are part of the PCR test protocol. And this test appears to be formalized for saliva from the start, which is far more practical than throat swabbing. Some studies indicate that PCR would very similar results if it was switched to saliva, but that would require recertification. Switching would probably be a net negative because swabbing is far from the only bottleneck and because protocol change artifacts would taint statistics.

Ensorceled 6y ago

The graphs suggest results in minutes, especially graphs 3a and 3b. Unclear on amount of setup and cleanup between tests but 3a also suggests good results by adding a second sample to a test in progress.