» Articles » PMID: 34823479

RLEP LAMP for the Laboratory Confirmation of Leprosy: Towards a Point-of-care Test

Overview
Journal BMC Infect Dis
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2021 Nov 26
PMID 34823479
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Nucleic acid-based amplification tests (NAAT), above all (q)PCR, have been applied for the detection of Mycobacterium leprae in leprosy cases and household contacts with subclinical infection. However, their application in the field poses a range of technical challenges. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), as a promising point-of-care NAAT does not require sophisticated laboratory equipment, is easy to perform, and is applicable for decentralized diagnosis at the primary health care level. Among a range of gene targets, the M. leprae specific repetitive element RLEP is regarded as highly sensitive and specific for diagnostic applications.  METHODS: Our group developed and validated a dry-reagent-based (DRB) RLEP LAMP, provided product specifications for customization of a ready-to-use kit (intended for commercial production) and compared it against the in-house prototype. The assays were optimized for application on a Genie III portable fluorometer. For technical validation, 40 "must not detect RLEP" samples derived from RLEP qPCR negative exposed and non-exposed individuals, as well as from patients with other conditions and a set of closely related mycobacterial cultures, were tested together with 25 "must detect RLEP" samples derived from qPCR confirmed leprosy patients. For clinical validation, 150 RLEP qPCR tested samples were analyzed, consisting of the following categories: high-positive samples of multibacillary (MB) leprosy patients (> 10.000 bacilli/extract), medium-positive samples of MB leprosy patients (1.001-10.000 bacilli/extract), low-positive samples of MB leprosy patients (1-1.000 bacilli/extract), endemic controls and healthy non-exposed controls; each n = 30.  RESULTS: Technical validation: both LAMP formats had a limit of detection of 1.000 RLEP copies, i.e. 43-27 bacilli, a sensitivity of 92% (in-house protocol)/100% (ready-to-use protocol) and a specificity of 100%. Reagents were stable for at least 1 year at 22 °C. Clinical validation: Both formats showed a negativity rate of 100% and a positivity rate of 100% for high-positive samples and 93-100% for medium positive samples, together with a positive predictive value of 100% and semi-quantitative results. The positivity rate for low-positive samples was 77% (in-house protocol)/43% (ready-to-use protocol) and differed significantly between both formats.  CONCLUSIONS: The ready-to-use RLEP DRB LAMP assay constitutes an ASSURED test ready for field-based evaluation trials aiming for routine diagnosis of leprosy at the primary health care level.

Citing Articles

Development of LAMP assay for early detection of in aquaculture.

Abbas H, Best N, Zerna G, Beddoe T PeerJ. 2025; 13:e19015.

PMID: 40028206 PMC: 11869897. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.19015.


Detection of Mtb and NTM: preclinical validation of a new asymmetric PCR-binary deoxyribozyme sensor assay.

Neves Y, Reis A, Rodrigues M, Chimara E, da Silva Lourenco M, Fountain J Microbiol Spectr. 2024; 12(6):e0350623.

PMID: 38651877 PMC: 11237447. DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.03506-23.


Target product profiles: leprosy diagnostics.

Kukkaro P, Vedithi S, Blok D, van Brakel W, Geluk A, Srikantam A Bull World Health Organ. 2024; 102(4):288-295.

PMID: 38562197 PMC: 10976862. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.290881.


Diagnosis and Treatment of Leprosy in Taiwan during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study in a Tertiaty Center.

Hsieh C, Hsiao P Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(24).

PMID: 38132239 PMC: 10742743. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13243655.


Challenges and advances in serological and molecular tests to aid leprosy diagnosis.

Lopes-Luz L, Saavedra D, Fogaca M, Buhrer-Sekula S, Stefani M Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2023; 248(22):2083-2094.

PMID: 38059475 PMC: 10800132. DOI: 10.1177/15353702231209422.


References
1.
Martinez A, Talhari C, Moraes M, Talhari S . PCR-based techniques for leprosy diagnosis: from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014; 8(4):e2655. PMC: 3983108. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002655. View

2.
Bretzel G, Huber K, Kobara B, Beissner M, Piten E, Herbinger K . Laboratory confirmation of Buruli ulcer disease in Togo, 2007-2010. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011; 5(7):e1228. PMC: 3139659. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001228. View

3.
Lee D, La Mura M, Allnutt T, Powell W . Detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) using isothermal amplification of target DNA sequences. BMC Biotechnol. 2009; 9:7. PMC: 2656497. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6750-9-7. View

4.
Martinez A, Britto C, Nery J, Sampaio E, Jardim M, Sarno E . Evaluation of real-time and conventional PCR targeting complex 85 genes for detection of Mycobacterium leprae DNA in skin biopsy samples from patients diagnosed with leprosy. J Clin Microbiol. 2006; 44(9):3154-9. PMC: 1594745. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02250-05. View

5.
Fischbach J, Xander N, Frohme M, Glokler J . Shining a light on LAMP assays--a comparison of LAMP visualization methods including the novel use of berberine. Biotechniques. 2015; 58(4):189-94. DOI: 10.2144/000114275. View