| Literature DB >> 24886279 |
Xingwei Ni, Donald P McManus, Hongbin Yan, Jifei Yang, Zhongzi Lou, Hongmin Li, Li Li, Mengtong Lei, Jinzhong Cai, Yanlei Fan, Chunhua Li, Quanyuan Liu, Wangui Shi, Xu Liu, Yadong Zheng, Baoquan Fu, Yurong Yang1, Wanzhong Jia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alveolar echinococcosis, caused by the metacestode larval stage of Echinococcus multilocularis, is a zoonosis of public health significance and is highly prevalent in northwest China. To effectively monitor its transmission, we developed a new rapid and cheap diagnostic assay, based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), to identify canine definitive hosts infected with E. multilocularis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24886279 PMCID: PMC4081488 DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Nucleotide sequences of the LAMP primers (licensed patent no. ZL201110346474.8) targeting the mt 5 gene
| FIP | TTAACCAACCAATAACAACCCAGT |
| BIP | ATGTGACGTTTGGTGTGGTAGTTA |
| F3 | GTGTGTTGCTATATTGCTTGT |
| B3 | AACTTTAACAACATACACCTAGT |
Note: The lower case italicized gaattc in the primers FIP and BIP shows the position of the introduced EcoRI restriction site.
Figure 1Establishment of the LAMP assay. (A: Left Panel) Amplification of LAMP of f-DNA (63°C for 40 min) and restriction digestion of LAMP products. Lanes: M, DNA marker; 1, LAMP products of f-DNA; 2, water control; 3, EcoRI digestion of LAMP products. (B: Right-top Panel) Specificity of LAMP assay for E. multilocularis DNA. Lanes: M, DNA marker; 1 and 2, g-DNA from E. multilocularis larvae and f-DNA; 3 to 9, g-DNA of E. granulosus (G1 strain), E. shiquicus, T hydatigena, T. pisiformis, T. taeniaeformis, T. multiceps, D. caninum parasites; 10, g-DNA from dog intestinal tissues; 11, no f-DNA; 12, water control. (C: Right-bottom Panel) Sensitivity of LAMP method using different numbers of E. multilocularis eggs per gram of feces. Lanes: M, DNA marker; 1 to 5, one to five eggs; 6, ten eggs; 7, fifteen eggs; 8, twenty eggs; 9, negative control.
The earliest time when fecal samples of -experimentally infected dogs tested positive with the LAMP and PCR assays and by microscopy
| LAMP | 12 | 12 | 13 | 12.3 | 0.03a |
| PCR | 17 | 17 | 18 | 17.3 | <0.001b |
| Microscopy | 42 | 44 | 46 | 44 | <0.001c |
Note: a, LAMP versus PCR; b, LAMP versus microscopy; c, PCR versus microscopy.
*Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA with post hoc LSD tests: P < 0.05 meaning statistical significance; P < 0.01 indicating significant difference; P < 0.001 showing extreme significant difference.
Number of field collected dog fecal samples shown to be positive or negative by the LAMP assay, PCR method and microscopy
| 5 | Positive | Positive | Positive |
| 5 | Positive | Positive | Negative |
| 5 | Positive | Negative | Positive |
| 16 | Positive | Negative | Negative |
| 158 | Negative | Negative | Negative |
| Total 189 | *31 positive samples | 10 positive samples | 10 positive samples |
| 158 negative samples | 179 negative samples | 179 negative samples | |
*The LAMP assay exhibited a significantly higher level of sensitivity than either the PCR method or microscopy (P < 0.001; Pearson chi-square test).