
Tired of delays, U.S. labs ask FDA to develop their own coronavirus tests - pmoriarty
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-usa-testing-idUSKCN20I2G8
======
syntaxing
I was under the impression CRISPR can actually be used for testing purposes as
well? Are traditional test methods more accurate?

~~~
igor47
it would probably be some sort of PCR, probably something like this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymera...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcription_polymerase_chain_reaction)

edit: yup: [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-
detecti...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-detection-
instructions.html)

~~~
syntaxing
Thanks for the links! I never knew how they did these tests.

~~~
Accujack
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.

------
igor47
a friend who works on comms for health organizations mentioned that the number
of cases of 19-ncov in the US is probably dramatically understated because of
problems with testing kits, described here.

