Introduction: Currently, the basis for molecular diagnostics of most infections is the use of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Technologies based on reverse transcription isothermal loop amplification (RT-LAMP) can be used as an alternative to RT-PCR for diagnostic purposes. In this study, we compared the RTLAMP and RT-PCR methods in order to analyze both the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches.
Material and methods: For the study, we used reagent kits based on RT-PCR and RT-LAMP. The biological material obtained by taking swabs from the mucous membrane of the oropharynx and nasopharynx in patients with symptoms of a new coronavirus infection was used.
Results: We tested 381 RNA samples of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Coronaviridae: Coronavirinae: Betacoronavirus; Sarbecovirus) from various patients. The obtained values of the threshold cycle (Ct) for RT-PCR averaged 20.0 ± 3.7 s (1530 ± 300 s), and for RT-LAMP 12.8 ± 3.7 s (550 ± 160 s). Proceeding from the theoretical assumptions, a linear relationship between values obtained in two kits was proposed as a hypothesis; the correlation coefficient was approximately 0.827. At the same time, for samples with a low viral load (VL), the higher Ct values in RT-LAMP did not always correlated with those obtained in RT-PCR.
Discussion: We noted a significant gain in time for analysis using RT-LAMP compared to RT-PCR, which can be important in the context of testing a large number of samples. Being easy to use and boasting short turnaround time, RT-LAMP-based test systems can be used for mass screening in order to identify persons with medium and high VLs who pose the greatest threat of the spread of SARS-CoV-2, while RT-PCR-based diagnostic methods are also suitable for estimation of VL and its dynamics in patients with COVID-19.