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
