Biomedical Science Letters

eISSN 2288-7415

Table. 2.

Evaluation of LAMP based methods for detecting of ASFV from food waste sample types

Methods Evaluation items Evaluation (Advantages / Disadvantages)
PCR Reactiona Specificity Sample test Sensitivityb Reaction time (min) Cost (per perp., won)d Remark
1 Dokphut et al., 2021 Amplification ND ND ND 90c 2,000~3,000 Preparation and result analysis processes requires Cannot evaluate (Need to re-examine the reaction conditions)
2 Shaanxi innolever biological technology Co. Ltd. 40c
3 James et al., 2010 50c
4 Center for animal disease control and prevention of Beijing (1) Specific Negative 10-5 (1 fg/μL) 50c Available
5 Center for animal disease control and prevention of Beijing (2) 10-6 (1 fg/μL) 50c Recommended (ASFV detection in food waste samples at relatively low cost / about 3× slower to get results compared to method #6, relatively many preparations process requires)
6 MmisoASFV detection kit (Mmonitor, Korea) ND 10-6 (1 fg/μL) 32 10,313 User-friendly & excellent reproducibility estimated Recommended [Excellent sensitivity in food waste sample & Rapid (about 3 times) / expensive (Approximately 5 times) compared to manual methods]

aUsing outer primers. bArtificial infection-based sensitivity. cAdditional gel-electrophoresis time (about 40~60 minutes) required. dCalculation from LAMP reaction to electrophoresis confirmation

Biomed Sci Letters 2022;28:334-9
© 2022 Biomed Sci Letters