Background: Conventional and nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) have been used to identify Mycobacterium ulcerans in separate studies and different specimens. However, the sensitivities of these three techniques have not been compared in a single study. Objective: This study compared the performance of two variant PCR techniques and LAMP assays to detect M. Ulcerans in same clinical specimens. Methods: Samples were collected from patients suspected of Buruli ulcer disease (BUD) in Southern Ghana. Ulcerative and non-ulcerative forms of the disease were swabbed and aspirated respectively. Insertion sequence 2404 (IS2404) M. ulcerans targets were detected in each sample using conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), nested PCR and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay. Results: In all, 141 suspected BUD patients were sampled (Amasaman, n = 52; Obom, n = 17; Paakro, n = 31; Nkawie, n = 21 and Tepa, n = 20). The reference technique, nested PCR, detected M. ulcerans in 122 (86.5%) whereas conventional PCR and BU-LAMP detected M. ulcerans in 104 (73.7%) and 119 (84.4%) samples respectively. Compared to nested PCR, conventional PCR performed poorly (x 2 = 19.7, p < 0.01; κ = 0.58; % agreement = 86.62) while BU-LAMP was as good as nested PCR (x 2 = 0.457, p = 0.459; κ = 0.88; % agreement = 97.16). Sensitivity of conventional PCR and BU-LAMP were 84.6% (95% CI: 76.9-90.4) and 97.5% (95% CI: 92.9-99.5) respectively. BU-LAMP and nested PCR detected M. ulcerans in ulcerative forms of the disease and category II lesions better while the three techniques did not differ in sensitivities in other clinical forms and lesion categories. Conclusion: BU-LAMP assay is very comparable to nested PCR in detecting M. ulcerans from clinical specimens. More importantly, LAMP assay is user-friendly, fast, requires less instrumentation and easy to use in resource-limited laboratory with minimal user training.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.