MedElevator
Войти в исследования Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026
Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification-lateral flow dipstick (LAMP-LFD) assay and on-site rapid detection evaluation for Rodentibacter heylii and Rodentibacter pneumotropicus.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yan Huiqiong, Chen Sisi, Gan Yuhan, Xing Jing, Feng Yufang, Wen Xin, Fang Jie, Du Jiangtao, Zhou Shasang, Guo Honggang, Jin Xiaoyin, Wang Zhiyuan, Tao Junhao, Lu Lingqun, Kong Qingming, Ying Huazhong, Han Wei, Dai Fangwei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rodentibacter pneumotropicus and Rodentibacter heylii are important exclusion pathogens in specific pathogen-free (SPF) laboratory animals. However, routine detection methods such as traditional bacterial culture remain labor-intensive and time-consuming. The loop-mediated isothermal amplification-lateral flow dipstick (LAMP-LFD) assay provides a self-contained format for nucleic acid testing that combines speed, sensitivity, and specificity while minimizing aerosol contamination, making it well-suited for point-of-need applications.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a streamlined, on-site detection platform capable of rapidly identifying both pathogens with high analytical accuracy, operational simplicity, and suitability for routine laboratory surveillance.
METHODS: A LAMP-LFD system was established for the detection of the two pathogens using primers designed against the conserved 16S-23S rRNA ITS region. The assay's specificity, sensitivity, repeatability, and limit of detection (LoD) were evaluated.
RESULTS: The assay achieved detection limits of 1 × 10-4 ng/μL for R. pneumotropicus and 1 × 10-5 ng/μL for R. heylii, demonstrating significantly higher sensitivity than PCR. No cross-reactivity was observed with 15 non-target bacteria. Among 28 infected samples, the method detected 19 positives, compared with 21 by multiplex PCR and 23 by qPCR. In 842 laboratory animal samples, culture-based, qPCR, and LAMP-LFD detected 2, 41, and 37 positive samples, respectively. The LoDs were 102 and 101 CFU/mL in fecal samples and 101 and 100 CFU/mL in throat swab samples for R. pneumotropicus and R. heylii, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This method provides an approach for monitoring the health status of laboratory mice by enabling the detection of these two target pathogens.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a streamlined, on-site detection platform capable of rapidly identifying both pathogens with high analytical accuracy, operational simplicity, and suitability for routine laboratory surveillance.
METHODS: A LAMP-LFD system was established for the detection of the two pathogens using primers designed against the conserved 16S-23S rRNA ITS region. The assay's specificity, sensitivity, repeatability, and limit of detection (LoD) were evaluated.
RESULTS: The assay achieved detection limits of 1 × 10-4 ng/μL for R. pneumotropicus and 1 × 10-5 ng/μL for R. heylii, demonstrating significantly higher sensitivity than PCR. No cross-reactivity was observed with 15 non-target bacteria. Among 28 infected samples, the method detected 19 positives, compared with 21 by multiplex PCR and 23 by qPCR. In 842 laboratory animal samples, culture-based, qPCR, and LAMP-LFD detected 2, 41, and 37 positive samples, respectively. The LoDs were 102 and 101 CFU/mL in fecal samples and 101 and 100 CFU/mL in throat swab samples for R. pneumotropicus and R. heylii, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This method provides an approach for monitoring the health status of laboratory mice by enabling the detection of these two target pathogens.