CRISPR-Cas12a Based Detection of African Swine Fever Virus: A Point-of-Care Molecular Assay for Field Surveillance

Introduction

African swine fever virus (ASFV) is a large, enveloped, double-stranded DNA virus belonging to the family Asfarviridae and the sole member of the genus Asfivirus [1, 2]. ASFV causes a highly contagious and often fatal hemorrhagic disease in domestic swine and wild boar, with mortality rates approaching 100% in naive populations [3, 4]. The virus is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa, Sardinia, and parts of Eastern Europe and Asia, and its continued spread poses a severe threat to global swine production and food security [5, 6]. Rapid and accurate detection of ASFV is critical for implementing effective biosecurity measures, controlling outbreaks, and preventing transboundary spread [7, 8]. Traditional diagnostic methods include virus isolation, antigen detection via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) [9, 10]. While qPCR remains the gold standard for ASFV diagnosis due to its high sensitivity and specificity, it requires expensive thermal cycling equipment, skilled personnel, and centralized laboratory infrastructure, limiting its utility in resource-limited field settings [11, 12].

The emergence of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) proteins has revolutionized molecular diagnostics [2, 13]. In particular, CRISPR-Cas12a (formerly known as Cpf1) exhibits collateral, non-specific single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) cleavage activity upon specific recognition of a target double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) sequence [14, 15]. This trans-cleavage property has been harnessed to develop rapid, sensitive, and specific nucleic acid detection platforms that can be deployed at the point of care (POC) [16, 17]. For ASFV, numerous CRISPR-Cas12a-based assays have been reported, often coupled with isothermal amplification techniques such as recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) or loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to enhance sensitivity [5, 7, 8]. These assays offer the potential for field-deployable, instrument-free detection with visual readouts, making them ideal for surveillance in remote or low-resource settings [18, 19, 20].

This article provides an exhaustive review of CRISPR-Cas12a-based detection of ASFV, focusing on assay design principles, analytical performance, comparison with qPCR, and practical considerations for field deployment. The discussion is contextualized within the broader landscape of ASFV diagnostics and biosecurity.

Biophysical and Mechanistic Basis of CRISPR-Cas12a Detection

CRISPR-Cas12a is a class 2, type V RNA-guided endonuclease that recognizes a short protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequence (typically 5'-TTTV-3' for AsCas12a) in target dsDNA [2, 14]. Upon binding of the CRISPR RNA (crRNA) to the complementary target strand, Cas12a undergoes a conformational change that activates its DNase activity, resulting in site-specific cleavage of the target DNA [15]. Importantly, this activation also triggers non-specific trans-cleavage of any ssDNA molecules in the reaction mixture [16, 17]. In diagnostic applications, this trans-cleavage activity is exploited by including a fluorophore-quencher (FQ) labeled ssDNA reporter probe. When the reporter is intact, fluorescence is quenched; upon Cas12a activation, the reporter is cleaved, generating a measurable fluorescence signal [18, 19]. Alternatively, colorimetric or lateral flow readouts can be achieved using gold nanoparticle probes or biotin-labeled reporters [9, 11, 12].

The sensitivity of direct CRISPR-Cas12a detection is limited by the requirement for a minimum target copy number to trigger trans-cleavage, typically in the range of 10^4 to 10^6 copies per reaction [13, 20]. To overcome this limitation, a pre-amplification step using isothermal methods such as RPA or LAMP is commonly employed [5, 7, 8]. RPA utilizes recombinase proteins, single-stranded binding proteins, and a strand-displacing DNA polymerase to amplify target DNA at a constant temperature (37-42 degrees Celsius) within 20-30 minutes [7, 10]. The amplified product is then directly added to the CRISPR-Cas12a detection reaction, which can be performed in a one-pot or two-step format [5, 6]. One-pot assays combine amplification and detection in a single tube, reducing handling steps and contamination risk, but may suffer from reduced sensitivity due to interference between components [5, 6].

Assay Design and Target Selection

The ASFV genome is a linear dsDNA molecule of approximately 170-193 kilobase pairs, encoding over 150 open reading frames [1, 3]. Conserved regions suitable for diagnostic targeting include structural protein genes such as p72 (B646L), p54 (E183L), p30 (CP204L), and the central variable region (CVR) [4, 9]. Additionally, genes encoding the DNA-binding protein S273R, the structural protein D117L, and the KP177R protein have been successfully targeted in CRISPR-Cas12a assays [6, 8, 9]. Table 1 summarizes selected CRISPR-Cas12a assays for ASFV, highlighting target genes, amplification methods, and readout modalities.

Table 1. Representative CRISPR-Cas12a Assays for ASFV Detection

The choice of target gene influences assay specificity and inclusivity. The p72 gene is highly conserved across all 24 known ASFV genotypes and is the most commonly targeted region [1, 20]. However, some assays target multiple genes simultaneously to reduce the risk of false negatives due to genetic variation [7]. For example, Cao et al. developed an assay targeting three conserved regions (p72, p54, and p30) using a multiplex RPA-CRISPR approach, achieving 100% specificity against a panel of other swine viruses [7].

Sensitivity and Specificity

The analytical sensitivity of CRISPR-Cas12a assays for ASFV is typically reported as the limit of detection (LOD) in copies per microliter of input sample or per reaction. Most assays achieve LODs ranging from 1 to 10 copies per microliter when combined with RPA pre-amplification [5, 6, 8, 9]. For example, Gao et al. reported a one-pot RPA-CRISPR-Cas12a assay with an LOD of 1 copy per microliter for the p72 gene, comparable to qPCR [5]. Similarly, Zhang et al. achieved an LOD of 1 copy per microliter using a lateral flow strip readout targeting the D117L gene [9]. Direct detection without pre-amplification yields higher LODs (e.g., 100 copies per microliter for an electrochemical biosensor) but offers the advantage of simpler workflow [3].

Specificity is assessed by testing against a panel of other porcine viruses, including [classical swine fever virus](/knowledge/viruses/livestock-viruses/classical-swine-fever-virus 2) (CSFV), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and swine influenza A virus (SIV) [7, 10, 11]. All reviewed assays demonstrated no cross-reactivity with these pathogens, confirming high specificity [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The use of carefully designed crRNAs targeting conserved regions minimizes off-target activation [2, 14].

Comparison with Quantitative PCR

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) remains the reference standard for ASFV nucleic acid detection, with LODs typically below 10 copies per reaction and a dynamic range spanning several orders of magnitude [1, 4]. However, qPCR requires expensive thermal cyclers, fluorescent probes, and trained personnel, making it unsuitable for field deployment [13, 18]. CRISPR-Cas12a assays offer several advantages: isothermal amplification eliminates the need for thermal cycling; visual or lateral flow readouts require only basic equipment (e.g., a heat block or portable fluorometer); and total turnaround time is often under one hour [5, 7, 9]. Table 2 compares key performance and logistical parameters.

Table 2. Comparison of CRISPR-Cas12a Assays and qPCR for ASFV Detection

Several studies have directly compared CRISPR-Cas12a assays with qPCR using clinical samples. Wang et al. tested 150 field samples (whole blood, serum, and tissue homogenates) and reported 98.7% concordance with qPCR [17]. Bai et al. evaluated 96 clinical samples and found 100% sensitivity and 97.5% specificity relative to qPCR [20]. These data indicate that CRISPR-Cas12a assays can achieve diagnostic accuracy comparable to qPCR while offering significant logistical advantages for field use.

Workflow and Field Deployment

A typical CRISPR-Cas12a assay workflow for ASFV detection involves the following steps: (1) sample collection (whole blood, oral fluid, or tissue); (2) nucleic acid extraction (optional, depending on assay design); (3) isothermal amplification (e.g., RPA); (4) CRISPR-Cas12a detection reaction; and (5) readout (fluorescence, colorimetric, or lateral flow). Some assays incorporate a simple boiling-based lysis step to release DNA without formal extraction, further simplifying the workflow [13, 14]. For example, Cao et al. demonstrated direct detection from swine blood without nucleic acid purification by using a simple heat treatment and a CRISPR-Cas12a system, achieving an LOD of 10 copies per microliter [13].

Figure 1 presents a Mermaid diagram illustrating the decision tree for field deployment of a CRISPR-Cas12a assay.

flowchart TD
    A[Sample Collection: Whole blood, oral fluid, or tissue], > B{Nucleic acid extraction?}
    B, >|Yes| C[Commercial extraction kit or simple boiling lysis]
    B, >|No| D[Direct lysis with heat or chemical treatment]
    C, > E[Isothermal amplification: RPA or LAMP at 37-42°C for 20-30 min]
    D, > E
    E, > F[CRISPR-Cas12a detection: Add crRNA, Cas12a, and reporter probe]
    F, > G{Readout modality}
    G, > H[Fluorescence: Portable fluorometer or UV lamp]
    G, > I[Lateral flow: Dipstick with anti-FAM and biotin antibodies]
    G, > J[Colorimetric: Gold nanoparticle aggregation or G-quadruplex]
    H, > K[Quantitative or qualitative result]
    I, > K
    J, > K
    K, > L[Interpretation: Positive if signal above threshold]
    L, > M[Report and biosecurity action]

Field deployment requires consideration of reagent stability, shelf life, and ease of use. Lyophilized reagents for RPA and CRISPR-Cas12a are commercially available and can be stored at ambient temperature for several months [5, 15]. Portable fluorometers or simple UV lamps can be used for fluorescence readout, while lateral flow strips provide a visual result without any instrumentation [9, 19]. The dipstick-based nucleic acid purification method described by Qian et al. further enhances field applicability by integrating sample preparation with detection [14].

Limitations and Challenges

Despite their promise, CRISPR-Cas12a assays have several limitations. The requirement for a PAM sequence restricts target site selection, although this can be mitigated by using Cas12a variants with relaxed PAM requirements [2]. Multiplexing is more challenging than with qPCR due to potential cross-talk between crRNAs and reporters [6, 7]. One-pot assays may suffer from reduced sensitivity due to incompatibility between RPA and CRISPR components, although careful optimization of buffer conditions and reagent concentrations can alleviate this issue [5]. Additionally, the risk of amplicon contamination is higher in isothermal amplification systems compared to closed-tube qPCR, necessitating strict workflow segregation [13, 14].

Another challenge is the potential for false positives due to non-specific activation of Cas12a by secondary structures or primer dimers [11, 12]. Inclusion of no-template controls and validation with a second target gene can reduce this risk [7]. Finally, the cost of CRISPR reagents, while decreasing, may still be prohibitive for large-scale surveillance in some regions [4, 18].

Integration with Broader Diagnostic and Surveillance Strategies

CRISPR-Cas12a assays are best viewed as complementary to, rather than a replacement for, qPCR. In a surveillance framework, these assays can serve as rapid screening tools at the farm level or in border inspection points, with positive results confirmed by qPCR or sequencing [1, 3]. The ability to test oral fluids or blood without complex extraction enables frequent monitoring of herds, facilitating early detection and containment [7, 14]. Linking CRISPR-based detection with computational models for spread prediction, as discussed in the article on African Swine Fever: Computational Models for Early Detection and Spread Prediction in Wild Boar Populations, can enhance outbreak response.

Furthermore, the platform can be adapted for other swine pathogens, such as porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) and [classical swine fever virus](/knowledge/viruses/livestock-viruses/classical-swine-fever-virus 2) (CSFV), by simply redesigning the crRNA [2, 11]. The article on CRISPR-Cas12a and Cas13a Platforms for Rapid Veterinary Viral Diagnostics provides a broader perspective on this technology. For a comprehensive overview of ASFV biology and pathogenesis, readers are referred to the African Swine Fever Virus article.

Conclusion

CRISPR-Cas12a-based detection of African swine fever virus represents a significant advancement in point-of-care molecular diagnostics for swine viral diseases. By combining isothermal amplification with the trans-cleavage activity of Cas12a, these assays achieve sensitivity and specificity comparable to qPCR while enabling rapid, instrument-free detection in field settings. The diversity of readout modalities, including fluorescence, lateral flow, and colorimetric formats, allows adaptation to different resource levels and user preferences. Ongoing efforts to simplify sample preparation, stabilize reagents, and integrate multiplexing will further enhance the utility of these assays for global ASFV surveillance and control. As the technology matures, it is poised to become a cornerstone of veterinary diagnostic networks, supporting early detection, biosecurity interventions, and ultimately, disease eradication.

References

[1] Kambakam S, Thomas J, Robbe-Austerman S, et al. Rapid identification of African swine fever virus in diagnostic samples using CRISPR-Cas. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41882914/

[2] Zhang X, Zhao X, Song Y, et al. Advances in CRISPR-Cas12a/13a-Based Nucleic Acid Detection for Porcine Viral Diseases: A Comprehensive Review. Vet Sci. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41745936/

[3] Li X, Ma J, Luo Y, et al. Enhancing Performance in Electrochemical Early Diagnosis of African Swine Fever Based on CRISPR-Responsive DNA Nanoflowers. Anal Chem. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41104823/

[4] Boodoo C, Alocilja EC. Biosensor Strategies for Rapid African Swine Fever Virus Detection. ACS Omega. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40978395/

[5] Gao X, Dong X, Song H, et al. A one-pot CRISPR-Cas12a-based assay for rapid, on-site detection of African swine fever virus. Int J Biol Macromol. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40680952/

[6] Han H, Zhang D, Hao W, et al. Parallel and Visual Detections of ASFV by CRISPR-Cas12a and CRISPR-Cas13a Systems Targeting the Viral S273R Gene. Animals (Basel). 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40646801/

[7] Cao S, Ma D, Xie J, et al. Point-of-care testing diagnosis of African swine fever virus by targeting multiple genes with enzymatic recombinase amplification and CRISPR/Cas12a System. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39698318/

[8] Luan H, Wang S, Ju L, et al. KP177R-based visual assay integrating RPA and CRISPR/Cas12a for the detection of African swine fever virus. Front Immunol. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38655256/

[9] Zhang D, Jiang S, Xia N, et al. Rapid Visual Detection of African Swine Fever Virus with a CRISPR/Cas12a Lateral Flow Strip Based on Structural Protein Gene D117L. Animals (Basel). 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38067063/

[10] Mao G, Luo X, Ye S, et al. Fluorescence and Colorimetric Analysis of African Swine Fever Virus Based on the RPA-Assisted CRISPR/Cas12a Strategy. Anal Chem. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37167072/

[11] Wang Y, Li R, Zhang Y, et al. Visual and label-free ASFV and PCV2 detection by CRISPR-Cas12a combined with G-quadruplex. Front Vet Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36524221/

[12] Ki J, Na HK, Yoon SW, et al. CRISPR/Cas-Assisted Colorimetric Biosensor for Point-of-Use Testing for African Swine Fever Virus. ACS Sens. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36399393/

[13] Cao G, Xiong Y, Nie F, et al. Non-nucleic acid extraction and ultra-sensitive detection of African swine fever virus via CRISPR/Cas12a. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35715648/

[14] Qian S, Chen Y, Peng C, et al. Dipstick-based rapid nucleic acids purification and CRISPR/Cas12a-mediated isothermal amplification for visual detection of African swine fever virus. Talanta. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35149424/

[15] Wu J, Mukama O, Wu W, et al. A CRISPR/Cas12a Based Universal Lateral Flow Biosensor for the Sensitive and Specific Detection of African Swine-Fever Viruses in Whole Blood. Biosensors (Basel). 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33321741/

[16] Li Z, Wei J, Di D, et al. Rapid and accurate detection of African swine fever virus by DNA endonuclease-targeted CRISPR trans reporter assay. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33201182/

[17] Wang X, He S, Zhao N, et al. Development and clinical application of a novel CRISPR-Cas12a based assay for the detection of African swine fever virus. BMC Microbiol. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32928112/

[18] He Q, Yu D, Bao M, et al. High-throughput and all-solution phase African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) detection using CRISPR-Cas12a and fluorescence based point-of-care system. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32056963/

[19] Wang X, Ji P, Fan H, et al. CRISPR/Cas12a technology combined with immunochromatographic strips for portable detection of African swine fever virus. Commun Biol. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32047240/

[20] Bai J, Lin H, Li H, et al. Cas12a-Based On-Site and Rapid Nucleic Acid Detection of African Swine Fever. Front Microbiol. 2019. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31921018/ *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.