| Literature DB >> 26273282 |
Marcos D Trangoni1, Andrea K Gioffré1, María E Cerón Cucchi2, Karina C Caimi1, Paula Ruybal1, Martín J Zumárraga1, Silvio L Cravero1.
Abstract
In this study, we developed new sets of primers to detect Brucella spp. and M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP) through isothermal amplification. We selected a previously well-characterized target gene, bscp31, specific for Brucella spp. and IS900 for MAP. The limits of detection using the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) protocols described herein were similar to those of conventional PCR targeting the same sequences. Hydroxynaphtol blue and SYBR Green(TM) allowed direct naked-eye detection with identical sensitivity as agarose gel electrophoresis. We included the LAMP-based protocol in a rapid identification scheme of the respective pathogens, and all tested isolates were correctly identified within 2 to 3 h. In addition, both protocols were suitable for specifically identifying the respective pathogens; in the case of Brucella, it also allowed the identification of all the biovars tested. We conclude that LAMP is a suitable rapid molecular typing tool that could help to shorten the time required to identify insidious bacteria in low-complexity laboratories, mainly in developing countries.Entities:
Keywords: brucellosis; loop-mediated isothermal amplification; molecular typing; paratuberculosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26273282 PMCID: PMC4507559 DOI: 10.1590/S1517-838246220131206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Microbiol ISSN: 1517-8382 Impact factor: 2.476
LAMP primers designed in this study.
| Target organism (Protocol) | Target sequence | Primer | Sequence (5′ to 3′) | Length | LAMP T (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| F3-Bru | CAGACGTTGCCTATTGGGC | 19-mer | 60 |
| B3-Bru | GGCTCATCCAGCGAAACG | 18-mer | |||
| FIP-Bru | CGGGTAAAGCGTCGCCAGAAGTTTT-GCACCGGCCTTTATGATGG | 44-mer | |||
| BIP-Bru | ACGATCCATATCGTTGCGCGTTTTT-GCTTGCCTTTCAGGTCTGC | 44-mer | |||
| LF-Bru | CGCAAATCTTCCACCTTGCC | 20-mer | |||
| LR-Bru | GGATGCAAACATCAAATCGGTC | 22-mer | |||
|
| IS | F3-MAP | CGCAACGCCGATACCGT | 17-mer | 65 |
| B3-MAP | CCCAGGATGACGCCGAA | 17-mer | |||
| FIP-MAP | CATCACCTCCTTGGCCAGGC-CCGCTAACGCCCAACAC | 37-mer | |||
| BIP-MAP | GCGACACCGACGCGATGAT-TCCGGGCATGCTCAGGA | 36-mer | |||
| LF-MAP | AGTGGCCGCCAGTTGTTG | 18-mer | |||
| LR-MAP | ACCGCCACGCCGAAATC | 17-mer |
Figure 1Comparative analytical sensitivity of Bru-LAMP and PCR. Agarose gel electrophoresis and direct naked-eye detection. 1a) B4/B5 PCR, 1.5% agarose gel. 1b) Bru-LAMP, 2% agarose gel. 1c) Bru-LAMP SYBR GreenTM. 1d) Bru-LAMP, HNB. Serial DNA dilution of Brucella abortus S2308 (from 50 pg to 5 fg); C1, Ochrobactrum anthropi DNA; C2, internal PCR/LAMP negative control (water). MM: 100 bp molecular marker (Promega).
Figure 2Comparative analytical sensitivity of MAP-LAMP and PCR. Agarose gel electrophoresis and direct naked-eye detection. 1a) IS900 PCR, 1.5% agarose gel. 1b) MAP-LAMP, 2% agarose gel. 1c) MAP-LAMP, SYBR GreenTM. 1d) MAP-LAMP, HNB. Serial DNA dilution of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis (from 1 ng to 10 fg); C1, M. avium subsp. avium DNA; C2, internal PCR/LAMP negative control (water). MM: 100 bp molecular marker (Promega).
LAMP performance and specificity evaluated using cell lysate samples from cultures of different bacteria.
| Bacteria (number of isolates
tested) | Host/source | PCR | LAMP |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| cattle sheep | + | + |
|
| cattle, dog, swine and human | − | − |
|
| cattle | − | − |
|
| water | − | − |
|
| human | − | − |
|
| cattle | − | − |
|
| cattle | − | − |
|
| reference strains | + | + |
|
| reference strains | + | + |
|
| reference strains | + | + |
|
| reference strain | + | + |
|
| reference strain | + | + |
|
| reference strain | + | + |
|
| reference strain | + | + |
|
| cattle, human | + | + |
|
| goat, human | + | + |
|
| Swine, human | + | + |
|
| whale | + | + |
71 samples were evaluated.
Mycobacterium spp. and Nocardia spp. isolates were processed by IS900 PCR. Brucella spp. were processed by B4/B5 PCR.
Samples were processed according to the corresponding LAMP protocols. The end-point was evaluated by SYBR GreenTM (naked-eye). The same results were obtained by UV visualization.
Figure 3A proposed workflow for rapid identification of microorganisms through LAMP: Identification of MAP as an example. The estimated times are relative to the sample number.