Search

We compared 2 novel loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays that target either the 16S ribosomal RNA ( rrs) gene or the gene encoding a 32-kDa leptospiral lipoprotein ( lipL32) in order to assess the effect of the target on the accuracy of the LAMP assays. The most sensitive assay was the rrs assay with a limit of detection (LOD) of 1.2 × 10 1 genome equivalents per reaction. The novel lipL32 assay showed an LOD of 1.2 × 10 2 genome equivalents per reaction. Both assays showed adequate specificity when tested against a collection of bacteria commonly found in voided canine urine. However, when field samples were assayed, the rrs assays gave many false-positive results and a poor positive predictive value of 8.33%. In conclusion, even if the LAMP assay is used in low prevalence areas, the lipL32 assay would be preferable. Conversely, the higher analytical sensitivity of the rrs assay could be effectively used as a screening test in endemic areas with high disease prevalence, followed by confirmation of the positive results using the lipL32 assay.

Leptospires are excreted in the urine of infected animals, and the prompt detection of leptospiral DNA using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is increasingly being used. However, contradictory data has emerged concerning the diagnostic accuracy of the most popular PCR assays that target either the 16S ribosomal RNA (rrs) or the subsurface lipoprotein (LipL32) genes. In order to clarify the effect of the gene target, a novel hydrolysis probe-based, quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) assay targeting the LipL32 gene was developed, validated, and then compared directly to the previously described rrs hydrolysis probe-based qPCR using a convenience collection of canine urine samples. The novel LipL32 qPCR assay was linear from 5.9 × 10(6) to 59 genome equivalents per reaction. Both the LipL32 and the rrs qPCR assays showed a limit of detection of 10 target copies per reaction indicating an approximately equivalent analytical sensitivity. Both assays amplified all 20 pathogenic leptospiral strains tested but did not amplify a representative collection of bacteria commonly found in voided canine urine. When the field samples were assayed, 1 and 5 out of 184 samples yielded an amplification signal in the LipL32 and rrs assays, respectively. Nevertheless, when the limit of detection was considered as the cutoff for interpreting findings, the 4 discordant cases were judged as negative. In conclusion, our study confirmed that both LipL32 and rrs are suitable targets for qPCR for the detection of leptospiral DNA in canine urine. However, the rrs target requires the mandatory use of a cutoff value in order to correctly interpret spurious amplifications., (© 2015 The Author(s).)