Evaluation of LAMP for detection of
LAMP
PCR
Shigella
culture
diarrhoea
dysentery
Journal
Access microbiology
ISSN: 2516-8290
Titre abrégé: Access Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101746927
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
06
2020
accepted:
20
08
2020
entrez:
9
12
2020
pubmed:
10
12
2020
medline:
10
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for the detection of Consecutive stool samples from children aged <13 years old who presented with acute watery diarrhoea or dysentery to the Department of Paediatrics were collected and processed in the Department of Microbiology. All the stool samples were subjected to culture, conventional PCR and LAMP. Genomic sequencing was performed for samples that were positive by LAMP but negative by both culture and conventional PCR. The LAMP results were compared to those from culture and to a composite reference standard based on culture and conventional PCR. Amongst the 374 stool samples tested, 291 samples were positive by LAMP and 213 were positive by the composite reference standard. The sensitivity of LAMP was 100 % (98.3-100 %) and its specificity was 51.6 % (43.6-59.5 %) with a disease prevalence of 57 %. The sensitivity and specificity of LAMP improved to 99.3 % (94.2-100) and 98.2 % (94.5-99.9), respectively, using latent class analysis, while assuming that genomic sequencing has perfect specificity. The authors have standardized the LAMP procedure for direct application to clinical stool samples. LAMP is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for the detection of
METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive stool samples from children aged <13 years old who presented with acute watery diarrhoea or dysentery to the Department of Paediatrics were collected and processed in the Department of Microbiology. All the stool samples were subjected to culture, conventional PCR and LAMP. Genomic sequencing was performed for samples that were positive by LAMP but negative by both culture and conventional PCR. The LAMP results were compared to those from culture and to a composite reference standard based on culture and conventional PCR.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Amongst the 374 stool samples tested, 291 samples were positive by LAMP and 213 were positive by the composite reference standard. The sensitivity of LAMP was 100 % (98.3-100 %) and its specificity was 51.6 % (43.6-59.5 %) with a disease prevalence of 57 %. The sensitivity and specificity of LAMP improved to 99.3 % (94.2-100) and 98.2 % (94.5-99.9), respectively, using latent class analysis, while assuming that genomic sequencing has perfect specificity.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The authors have standardized the LAMP procedure for direct application to clinical stool samples. LAMP is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of
Identifiants
pubmed: 33294772
doi: 10.1099/acmi.0.000169
pii: 000169
pmc: PMC7717480
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
acmi000169Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(8):651-66
pubmed: 10516787
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40633
pubmed: 22844405
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2016 Apr 28;10(4):449-52
pubmed: 27131013
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 May;42(5):2031-5
pubmed: 15131166
Phytopathology. 2013 Dec;103(12):1243-51
pubmed: 23883156
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008 Jan;15(1):106-14
pubmed: 17989336
Lancet. 2016 Sep 24;388(10051):1291-301
pubmed: 27673470
J Appl Microbiol. 2011 May;110(5):1245-51
pubmed: 21332893
J Infect Dis. 1997 Oct;176(4):1013-8
pubmed: 9333160
Stat Methods Med Res. 2000 Jun;9(3):231-48
pubmed: 11084706
Pediatrics. 2008 Sep;122(3):e541-9
pubmed: 18710884
Indian J Med Microbiol. 2017 Apr-Jun;35(2):204-210
pubmed: 28681807
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Jun;51(6):1740-6
pubmed: 23536399
J Infect Chemother. 2009 Apr;15(2):62-9
pubmed: 19396514
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37360
pubmed: 22666350
Front Microbiol. 2016 Jan 19;6:1573
pubmed: 26834722
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005 Feb 1;243(1):259-63
pubmed: 15668027
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):797-806
pubmed: 19447581
Stat Med. 2016 Apr 30;35(9):1454-70
pubmed: 26555849
J Med Microbiol. 2001 Aug;50(8):667-674
pubmed: 11478669
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010 Oct;68(2):117-22
pubmed: 20846583
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb 15;179(4):423-31
pubmed: 24272278
BMC Infect Dis. 2005 Feb 14;5:8
pubmed: 15707504
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2000 Dec;31(6):421-6
pubmed: 11123549
Indian J Med Microbiol. 2012 Jul-Sep;30(3):279-84
pubmed: 22885192
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011 Jun;62(1):41-8
pubmed: 21276085
Jpn J Infect Dis. 2003 Jun;56(3):103-6
pubmed: 12944675