Poussard M, Pant S D, Huang J, Scott P, Ghorashi S A
School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
Gulbali Institute, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
N Z Vet J. 2025 Mar;73(2):134-142. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2024.2417921. Epub 2024 Oct 24.
To develop a colourimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the detection of in clinical poultry samples and compare the performance of this assay with PCR. A secondary aim was to evaluate a simple DNA extraction method that could enable LAMP-based testing in the field without the need for specialised laboratory equipment.
Primer sets for both LAMP and PCR were designed to amplify the gene of DNA was extracted from 12 isolates using a commercial extraction kit, and subjected to analysis using both LAMP and PCR. The analytical specificity of the LAMP assay was evaluated by testing it against a panel of 12 unrelated bacterial species, and the analytical sensitivity (limit of detection) was determined through testing of serial dilutions of the target DNA and compared to that of PCR. Subsequently, cloacal swabs (n = 40) from a commercial turkey flock were subjected to analysis using both LAMP and PCR assays, using a rapid DNA extraction method and a commercial extraction kit. Clinical sensitivity and specificity of the LAMP assay were calculated in comparison to PCR.
A single DNA fragment of the expected size (∼ 200 base pairs), was amplified by PCR from 12 isolates, which were also all positive by the LAMP assay. The identity of all PCR amplicons was confirmed by sequencing. Both PCR and LAMP showed similar analytical sensitivity, with a LOD of 20 pg of target DNA. As neither PCR nor LAMP assays produced positive results with 12 non-related bacterial species, the analytical specificity was assessed as 100%. However, LAMP demonstrated lower clinical specificity (94.74%) compared to PCR (100%) when 40 clinical samples were tested. None of the DNA samples extracted using the simplified DNA extraction method were amplified by either LAMP or PCR.
The LAMP assay developed in this study exhibits comparable performance to PCR in detecting .
The use of a rapid and portable DNA extraction method, in conjunction with LAMP assays, could create opportunities for point-of-care testing for fowl cholera in field settings.
开发一种用于检测临床家禽样本中[具体检测对象]的比色环介导等温扩增(LAMP)检测方法,并将该检测方法的性能与聚合酶链反应(PCR)进行比较。第二个目的是评估一种简单的DNA提取方法,该方法能够在无需专业实验室设备的情况下在现场进行基于LAMP的检测。
设计用于LAMP和PCR的引物组,以扩增[具体基因]基因。使用商业提取试剂盒从12株[具体菌株]中提取DNA,并分别用LAMP和PCR进行分析。通过对12种无关细菌进行检测来评估LAMP检测的分析特异性,并通过检测目标DNA的系列稀释液来确定分析灵敏度(检测限),并与PCR的检测限进行比较。随后,使用快速DNA提取方法和商业提取试剂盒,对来自一个商业火鸡群的泄殖腔拭子(n = 40)分别进行LAMP和PCR检测分析。与PCR相比,计算LAMP检测的临床敏感性和特异性。
通过PCR从12株[具体菌株]中扩增出预期大小(约200个碱基对)的单一DNA片段,这些菌株通过LAMP检测也均为阳性。所有PCR扩增产物通过测序确认其同一性。PCR和LAMP显示出相似的分析灵敏度,目标DNA的检测限为20 pg。由于PCR和LAMP检测对12种无关细菌均未产生阳性结果,因此分析特异性评估为100%。然而,在检测40份临床样本时,与PCR(100%)相比,LAMP显示出较低的临床特异性(94.74%)。使用简化DNA提取方法提取的DNA样本均未通过LAMP或PCR扩增。
本研究开发的LAMP检测方法在检测[具体检测对象]方面表现出与PCR相当的性能。
使用快速便携式DNA提取方法结合LAMP检测,可为现场环境中的禽霍乱即时检测创造机会。