Evaluation of a Point-of-Need Molecular Diagnostic Tool Coupled with Rapid DNA Extraction Methods for Visceral Leishmaniasis

Author:

Ghosh Prakash1ORCID,Chowdhury Rajashree1ORCID,Faisal Khaledul1,Khan Md. Anik Ashfaq2,Hossain Faria1,Rahat Md. Abu1ORCID,Chowdhury Md. Arko Ayon1ORCID,Mithila Nishad Tasnim1,Kamal Mostafa1,Maruf Shomik1ORCID,Nath Rupen1,Kobialka Rea Maja2,Ceruti Arianna2,Cameron Mary3ORCID,Duthie Malcolm S.4,Wahed Ahmed Abd El2ORCID,Mondal Dinesh1

Affiliation:

1. Nutrition Research Division (NRD), International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh

2. Institute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, Leipzig University, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany

3. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London WC1E 7HT, UK

4. HDT Bio, Seattle, WA 98102, USA

Abstract

A rapid, cost-effective, and simple nucleic acid isolation technique coupled with a point-of-need DNA amplification assay is a desirable goal for programmatic use. For diagnosis of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL), Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA) rapid tests for the detection of Leishmania DNA are versatile and have operational advantages over qPCR. To facilitate the delivery of the RPA test at point-of-need for VL diagnosis, we compared two rapid DNA extraction methods, SwiftDx (SX) and an in-house Boil and Spin (BS) method, coupled with RPA amplification, versus more widely used methods for DNA extraction and amplification, namely Qiagen (Q) kits and qPCR, respectively. A total of 50 confirmed VL patients and 50 controls, matched for age and gender, were recruited from Mymensingh, Bangladesh, a region highly endemic for VL. Blood samples were collected from each participant and DNA was extracted using Q, SX and BS methods. Following DNA extraction, qPCR and RPA assays were performed to detect L. donovani in downstream analysis. No significant differences in sensitivity of the RPA assay were observed between DNA extraction methods, 94.00% (95% CI: 83.45–98.75%), 90% (95% CI: 78.19–96.67%), and 88% (95% CI: 75.69–95.47%) when using Q, SX, and BS, respectively. Similarly, using qPCR, no significant differences in sensitivity were obtained when using Q or SX for DNA extraction, 94.00% (95% CI: 83.45–98.75%) and 92.00% (80.77–97.78%), respectively. It is encouraging that RPA and qPCR showed excellent agreement (k: 0.919–0.980) when different extraction methods were used and that the DNA impurities using BS had no inhibitory effect on the RPA assay. Furthermore, significantly higher DNA yields were obtained using SX and BS versus Q; however, a significantly higher parasite load was detected using qPCR when DNA was extracted using Q versus SX. Considering the cost, execution time, feasibility, and performance of RPA assay, rapid extraction methods such as the Boil and Spin technique appear to have the potential for implementation in resource-limited endemic settings. Further clinical research is warranted prior to broader application.

Funder

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Clinical Biochemistry

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3