[ad_1]
To reopen the economy again, the world needs millions of tests to detect people with the Corona virus, which is why a team of scientists has developed a pilot prototype of a fairly quick and inexpensive test to diagnose the virus, and gives such simple results. like in a pregnancy test.
According to the New York Times, the test is based on a gene-editing technique known as “Crispr,” and the researchers estimated that the materials for each test would cost around $ 6.
The test can detect small amounts of the virus by rubbing the nose or spitting, and will give results in an hour.
The researchers confirmed that all of the chemicals needed to run the test are in a tube, making it easier to test accurately, unlike any other test on the market.
The researchers suggested that anyone can take a sample from their nose or spit into the tube containing chemicals, and it will give the results of virus infection, either positive or negative on both sides of the tube within an hour, as in a pregnancy test.
“We are excited that this can be a simple solution, so people will not have to go to advanced laboratories to perform tests,” said Feng Zhang, a researcher at the Broad Institute in Cambridge who led the study.
On Tuesday, Dr. Zhang and colleagues published an explanation of the test online, but its methods have not yet been tested by other scientists, nor have its results been published in a scientific journal.
Meanwhile, two other teams of researchers, one in Buenos Aires, Argentina and the other in San Francisco, are devising new virus detection tests using gene-editing technology.
For his part, Dr. Joshua Schraffstein, a professor of health policy at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Health, said it was important for scientists to look for new types of coronavirus tests, stressing that it should be good compared to the standard tests currently in use known as “PCR”.
Omar Abu Dayyah, a collaborator with Dr. Zhang, said: “We really need new technologies that are more distributed, and do not require thousands of trained people or central laboratories,” emphasizing that the accuracy of the tests in the experiments was around 97%. .
