4.5 Article

Sensitive and rapid detection of Schistosoma japonicum DNA by loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 327-331

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.08.010

关键词

Schistosoma japonicum; Schistosomiasis; Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); Early diagnosis; Therapy evaluation

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB513102, 2007CB513104]
  2. Excellence in Six Areas [06-B-061]
  3. Research Innovation of College Graduate Student of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

in this study, a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay was established to detect Schistosoma japonicum DNA in faecal and serum samples of rabbits, and serum samples of humans infected with S. japonicum. This LAMP assay was based on the sequence of highly repetitive retrotransposon SjR2, and was able to detect 0.08 fg S. japonicum DNA, which is 10(4) times more sensitive than conventional PCR. The LAMP assay was also highly specific for S. japonicum and able to detect S. japonicum DNA in rabbit sera at 1 week p.i. Following administration of praziquantel, detection of S. japonicum DNA in rabbit sera became negative at 12 weeks post-treatment. These results demonstrated that LAMP was effective for early diagnosis of, and evaluation of therapy effectiveness for, S. japonicum infection. Both PCR and LAMP assays were then used to detect S. japonicum DNA in 30 serum samples from S. japonicum-infected patients and 20 serum samples from healthy persons. The percentage sensitivity of LAMP was 96.7%, whereas that of PCR was only 60%, indicating that LAMP was more sensitive than conventional PCR for clinical diagnosis of schistosomiasis cases in endemic areas. The established LAMP assay should provide a useful and practical tool for the routine diagnosis and therapeutic evaluation of human schistosomiasis. (C) 2009 Australian Society for Parasitology Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据