Key result
Real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) detected FMDV in 76% (38/50) of field samples, with efficiencies of 80.9% for Asia-1, 73.4% for A, and 62.35% for O serotypes.
Why the study?
Does RT-LAMP accurately detect FMDV and its serotypes compared to real-time PCR in field samples?
Does RT-LAMP accurately detect FMDV and its serotypes compared to real-time PCR in field samples?
RT-LAMP is a rapid and effective method for detecting FMDV and its serotypes in field samples.
May aid rapid FMDV field detection; hypothesis-generating until validated against PCR in prospective studies.
Availability of a rapid and sensitive diagnostic technique is key in successful prevention and control of infectious diseases like foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Existing conventional diagnostic tests for FMD are laborious and time-consuming with low sensitivity and specificity. Molecular-based techniques are costly and difficult, involving refined apparatus like a thermal cycler. In the present study, the technique of real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) was standardized for diagnosing FMDV and its serotypes, evaluated using field samples, and compared with the existing real-time PCR in Pakistan. RT-LAMP amplified the target 3D gene using specific primers at 65 °C for 60 min and the VP1 gene using serotype specific primers at 63 °C for 60 min. A total of 38 samples out of 50 were positive by RT-LAMP and identified serotypes were A (n = 15), O (n = 15), and Asia-1 (n = 8). The efficiency of RT-LAMP in this study was highest for serotype Asia-1 (80.9%) followed by serotype A (73.4%) and O (62.35).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maryam et al. (2017) studied Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (n=50). Real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) vs. Real-time PCR was evaluated on Detection of FMDV and its serotypes. Real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) detected FMDV in 76% (38/50) of field samples, with efficiencies of 80.9% for Asia-1, 73.4% for A, and 62.35% for O serotypes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: