4.6 Article

Classification of Multiple DNA Dyes Based on Inhibition Effects on Real-Time Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP): Prospect for Point of Care Setting

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02234

关键词

loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); real-time LAMP; classification; Salmonella; inhibitory effects; DNA dye

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology and Biomedicine - Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
  2. national GUDP [34009-15-1038]
  3. EU [687697, 773422]
  4. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [773422] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LAMP has received great interest and is widely utilized in life sciences for nucleic acid analysis. To monitor a real-time LAMP assay, a fluorescence DNA dye is an indispensable component and therefore the selection of a suitable dye for real-time LAMP is a need. To aid this selection, we investigated the inhibition effects of twenty-three DNA dyes on real-time LAMP. Threshold time (T-t) values of each real-time LAMP were determined and used as an indicator of the inhibition effect. Based on the inhibition effects, the dyes were classified into four groups: (1) non-inhibition effect, (2) medium inhibition effect, (3) high inhibition effect, and (4) very high inhibition effect. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) and the limit of detection (LOD) of the dyes in groups 1, 2, and 3 were further investigated, and possible inhibition mechanisms of the DNA dyes on the real-time LAMP are suggested and discussed. Furthermore, a comparison of SYTO 9 in different LAMP reactions and different systems is presented. Of the 23 dyes tested, SYTO 9, SYTO 82, SYTO 16, SYTO 13, and Miami Yellow were the best dyes with no inhibitory effect, low LOD and high SNR in the real-time LAMP reactions. The present classification of the dyes will simplify the selection of fluorescence dye for real-time LAMP assays in point of care setting.

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

4.6
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