New Zika detection method reported

Scientists described a new way to detect Zika virus directly from whole blood by drying the sample to preserve viral RNA, according to a 2026 paper in *Science Advances*. The method is designed to avoid the extraction and purification steps that standard molecular testing usually requires, the paper said. The Hindu Science highlighted the work in a Sept. 8 post on X, saying the approach offered faster detection than standard assay workflows. The study also tested the same platform on hepatitis C virus, but Zika was one of the named targets in the report. ### What did the researchers actually build? Jongwon Lim and co-authors wrote that the method uses a blood-drying protocol that protects RNA from degradation in whole blood, where enzymes and other components can interfere with molecular detection. The paper said thermal treatment and a primer-limited reverse transcription step stabilize RNA in a dried blood matrix and allow enzymatic amplification without conventional extraction. (science.org) The *Science Advances* paper said the system supports multiplexed detection from a single sample and can be used with a portable fluorometer for point-of-care testing. The authors said the setup can work with lyophilized reagents and minimal equipment, including a heater and a low-cost portable reader. ### How fast was the Zika test? The paper said the platform could detect Zika virus in whole blood within about two hours. (science.org) A secondary summary citing *The Hindu* described the process as low-cost and rapid, and said it delivered speed comparable to top laboratory methods. The authors reported sensitivity down to 10 copies per microliter for Zika virus in whole blood. (science.org) They also said the protocol could be scaled to larger blood volumes and, in some configurations, reach single-copy sensitivity without sample loss. ### How does that compare with current Zika testing? The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says nucleic acid amplification tests, or NAATs, are the preferred method for diagnosing Zika because they can provide confirmed evidence of infection. (science.org) CDC also says diagnostic testing for Zika can use both molecular and serologic methods, and that suspected Zika cases should also be evaluated for dengue because the two viruses can circulate in similar regions and present similarly. The new paper does not replace that clinical guidance on its own. The study presents a laboratory method intended to simplify sample handling and make RNA testing more accessible in settings where extraction equipment, cold-chain logistics or specialized instruments are harder to obtain, according to the authors. That characterization is drawn from the paper’s description of the platform rather than from a regulatory decision or clinical practice guideline. (cdc.gov) ### Why focus on whole blood instead of purified samples? The researchers said direct RNA amplification from whole blood is difficult because RNA degrades quickly and blood contains inhibitory substances. Their protocol tries to solve that by drying the blood and preserving the target RNA inside the matrix before amplification. The paper said that matters for infections such as Zika, where early diagnosis is important, including during pregnancy because of the risk of severe congenital outcomes such as microcephaly. (science.org) The authors also wrote that low- and middle-income settings can face added barriers to timely testing. ### Where can readers find the method now? (science.org) The procedural details are in the 2026 *Science Advances* paper, “Amplification of RNA for identification of Zika and HCV in whole blood,” by Lim and co-authors. The Hindu Science’s Sept. 8 social post pointed readers to that research as the basis for its note on the new Zika detection method. (science.org) CDC’s current public guidance, last updated on Nov. 19, 2025, continues to describe NAAT assays as the preferred diagnostic approach for confirmed Zika detection. Any next step toward clinical use would depend on further validation, regulatory review or adoption by laboratories and health systems, none of which was announced in the sources reviewed here. (cdc.gov) (science.org)