Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug;36(8):e24565.
doi: 10.1002/jcla.24565. Epub 2022 Jun 26.

Comparative analysis of loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with microfluidic chip technology and q-PCR in the detection of clinical infectious pathogens

Affiliations

Comparative analysis of loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with microfluidic chip technology and q-PCR in the detection of clinical infectious pathogens

Enqi Zhang et al. J Clin Lab Anal. 2022 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Rapid diagnosis of infectious pathogens at an early stage is crucial to stabilize the patient's condition, reduce medical costs, and shorten hospital stays. Currently, some point-of-care tests have their own shortcomings. Therefore, we built a microfluidic chip based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification to can quickly and sensitively detect infectious pathogens.

Methods: We extracted the DNA of S. aureus, MRSA, Shigella and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Then, the DNA samples were diluted by 10-fold and examined by two methods: LAMP-microfluidic chip and q-PCR, the sensitivity of whom was also compared. In addition, the specificity of the two was also examined by detecting the target bacteria and other microorganisms using the same methods. Finally, we extracted and tested the DNA of clinically infected humoral samples to determine the coincidence rate between the two methods and the bacterial culture method.

Results: For S. aureus, MRSA, Shigella, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, the detection limits of the chip were 2.25 × 103 copies/μl, 5.32 × 103 copies/μl, 2.89 × 103 copies/μl, 6.53 × 102 copies/μl, and the detection limits of q-PCR were 2.25 × 102 copies/μl, 5.32 × 101 copies/μl, 2.89 × 102 copies/μl, 6.53 × 101 copies/μl, respectively. In terms of detection specificity, neither method cross-reacted with other strains. For the detection of infectious humoral samples, the total coincidence rate between the q-PCR and bacterial culture method was 85.7%, 95%, 95%, and 95.5%, and the total coincidence rate between the chip and bacterial culture method was 81%, 95%, 90%, and 86.4%, respectively.

Conclusion: LAMP-microfluidic chip provides a simple, sensitive, specific, convenient, and rapid pathogen detection method for clinically infected humoral samples without relying on expensive equipment or technical personnels.

Keywords: bacteria; chip; detection; loop-mediated isothermal amplification; microfluidics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the ICMJE Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest and have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The dilution multiple and sensitivity result of four bacteria detected by q‐PCR
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The dilution multiple and positive results of four bacteria were detected by microfluidic chip method. The blue curve is the AC quality control line, and the positive signal indicates that the test is effective; TP (min) represents the jump time of the reaction curve signal
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Specificity of detecting S. aureus by qPCR
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Specificity of detecting MRSA by qPCR
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Specificity of detecting Shigella by qPCR
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Specificity of detecting Klebsiella pneumoniae by qPCR

Similar articles

References

    1. Koch AM, Nilsen RM, Eriksen HM, Cox RJ, Harthug S. Mortality related to hospital‐associated infections in a tertiary hospital; repeated cross‐sectional studies between 2004–2011. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4:57. doi:10.1186/s13756-015-0097-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soleymani F, Safari Palangi H, Sarabi Asiabar A, et al. Costs of hospital‐acquired infection for patients hospitalized in intensive care unit of an Iranian referral hospital. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018;32:67. doi:10.14196/mjiri.32.67 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for Sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235‐2244. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1703058 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vincent JL, Brealey D, Libert N, et al. Rapid diagnosis of infection in the critically ill, a multicenter study of molecular detection in bloodstream infections, pneumonia, and sterile site infections. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(11):2283‐2291. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001249 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liesenfeld O, Lehman L, Hunfeld KP, Kost G. Molecular diagnosis of sepsis: new aspects and recent developments. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp). 2014;4(1):1‐25. doi:10.1556/EuJMI.4.2014.1.1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Supplementary concepts