Poon Leo L M, Wong Bonnie W Y, Chan Kwok H, Ng Stella S F, Yuen Kwok Y, Guan Yi, Peiris J S Malik
Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Jul;43(7):3457-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.7.3457-3459.2005.
We compared the performance of a recently established real-time loop-mediated amplification (LAMP) assay with the one from a highly sensitive quantitative PCR assay. None of these assays produced false-positive results in this study. For samples isolated from patients within the first 3 days of disease onset, the detection rate of the quantitative PCR assay was higher (14 of 15 were positive) than the LAMP assay (9 of 15 were positive). By contrast, the detection rates of these assays toward specimens sampled from patients with more than 3 days of illness were similar (32 of 44 for PCR and 33 of 44 for LAMP were positive). The simpler operation of LAMP might be a possible solution for on-site diagnosis.
我们将最近建立的实时环介导等温扩增（LAMP）检测方法的性能与一种高灵敏度定量PCR检测方法的性能进行了比较。在本研究中，这些检测方法均未产生假阳性结果。对于在疾病发作的前3天内从患者中分离出的样本，定量PCR检测方法的检出率（15例中有14例呈阳性）高于LAMP检测方法（15例中有9例呈阳性）。相比之下，这些检测方法对发病超过3天的患者所采集样本的检出率相似（PCR检测44例中有32例呈阳性，LAMP检测44例中有33例呈阳性）。LAMP操作更简便，可能是现场诊断的一个可行解决方案。
