Erratum: Review: A comprehensive summary of a decade development of the recombinase polymerase amplification (Analyst (2019) 144 (31-67) DOI: 10.1039/C8AN01621F)

Abstract

The authors regret that the original version of the review contained some incorrect data. Corrections to the original article are listed as follows. Some of the values in Table 5 were incorrect. The corrected version of Table 5 is presented below. In section 2.3, data from ref. 41 were not cited correctly and should be removed. The respective passage should read as follows: "However, shorter amplicons (79 nucleotides;37 94 nucleotides38-40) and longer amplicons up to 1500 nucleotides6 have also been reported." In the Fig. 2 caption, "(Bsu or Sau)" should be removed after "recombinase" and inserted after "polymerase". The corrected passage should read as follows: "The recombinase disassembles from the nucleoprotein filament once the strand exchange is performed, and will be available for the next pair of primers. Next, the DNA polymerase (Bsu or Sau) extends from the 3' end of primers." In section 2.5, ref. 76 is not relevant as it is the same as ref. 77, and should be disregarded. The respective passage should read as follows: "However, several research groups have studied RPA reaction temperatures that lie outside of the recommended range.38,44,45,60,62-75,77,78 The largest temperature range was tested between 15 °C and 50 °C;62,64,69,70,77 and results indicated the marginal reaction temperature to produce a positive result should be greater than 30 °C.62-64,66,67,69,71,74,77" In section 2.5, ref. 63 was not interpreted correctly. The corrected text should read: "Moreover, Lillis et al.63 showed that the ambient temperature also had an effect on RPA reaction: the RPA reaction was unstable if the ambient temperature was below 30 °C, even at extended reaction time." In section 2.8, ref. 107 is not required and should be deleted. The corrected passage should read: "For the TwistAmp nfo kit, however, two types of amplicons are generated- (note that only the dual-labelled product will generate a positive signal in the test zone of a lateral flow strip detection based on a sandwich assay).105,106,108" In section 2.8, the problems reported in ref. 117 were not sufficiently reflected in the original version of the review. Ref. 117 should be reported separately and the passage should read as follows: "As with lateral flow strip detection, direct usage of RPA amplicons is possible, but it is recommended to dilute the amplicons with the running buffer (e.g. 1/100 dilution) before running on the strip to (1) improve its wicking performance114 and (2) avoid "faint ghost band" effects.45,54,115,116 However, the dilution of the amplicon does not always prevent the appearance of a faint band, which can lead to specificity problems in the assay.117" In section 3.2, ref. 166 was not cited correctly. The corrected version should read: "Results suggest that electrochemical detection could be up to 10-fold more sensitive than optical detection (by enzyme linked oligonucleotide assay).166" In section 3.2, a reference was not provided for the sensitivity of the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay. A reference should be added to the end of the following passage: "This ruthenium compound-based electrochemical detection achieved 11 CFU mL-1 of Mycobacterium tuberculosis analytical sensitivity, which is even more sensitive than the GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid Inc.) detection (a World Health Organisation recommended tuberculosis diagnostic system that employs PCR real-time fluorescent detection; 131 CFU mL-1)." The added reference is shown below as ref. 1. In section 3.4, ref. 113 was not cited correctly. Instead of Mycobacterium bovis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis was used for demonstration. The corrected sentence should read: "Liu et al.113 demonstrated a duplex detection of IS6110 and IS1081 insertion sequences of Mycobacterium tuberculosis using RPA-SMR assay, and achieved 3.2 and 12 genomic DNA copies per reaction analytical sensitivity respectively." In section 4.1, ref. 182 and 183 were not cited precisely. The corrected version of the text should read: "The "microcliff" structured microchip demonstrated by Yeh et al. encased 200 to 1500 wells (30-100 nL per well),182 and 224 wells (100 nL per well),183 which allowed detection of 103-105 and 10-105 copies per μL of MRSA DNA, respectively." In section 4.2, ref. 194 should be deleted after the following sentence: "For the latter, one demonstration is on the digital video disk (DVD) by Maquieira research group, and the resulting signals can be detected by a DVD player (Fig. 12B).188,191" Ref. 101 in the original article was incorrect and should be replaced with the correct reference, shown below as ref. 2. Ref. 107 was not cited in the original article and should be disregarded. (Table Presented). The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.