首页> 外文期刊>Progress in Artificial Intelligence >Dominant marker (inter-simple sequence repeat-polymerase chain reaction) versus codominant marker (RLEP-polymerase chain reaction) for laboratory diagnosis of leprosy: A comparative evaluation
【24h】

Dominant marker (inter-simple sequence repeat-polymerase chain reaction) versus codominant marker (RLEP-polymerase chain reaction) for laboratory diagnosis of leprosy: A comparative evaluation

机译:显性标志物(简单序列重复聚合酶链反应)与麻风病实验室诊断的Codominant标志物(RLEP聚合酶链反应):比较评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Leprosy is a contagious disease and was eliminated globally in 2002. Since then, new cases were continuously detected from different parts of the world. Untreated leprosy cases shed millions of bacteria and are the main cause of dissemination of the disease. Currently, leprosy is detected by acid-fast bacilli (AFB) microscopy and has a low sensitivity ranging from 10% to 50%. The correlation between clinical findings and microscopy is unable to provide a conclusive case detection. Thus, in the present study, we compared to molecular methods, namely RLEP-polymerase chain reaction (RLEP-PCR) and inter-simple sequence repeat-PCR (ISSR-PCR) taking AFB microscopy as a gold standard for the detection of leprosy. Methods: A total of 168 clinically diagnosed leprosy patients were recruited in this study including 58 multibacillary and 110 paucibacillary patients. Slit-skin smear samples were taken for both microscopy and molecular study. Primers for RLEP-PCR were taken from the previous reports. The primers for ISSR-PCR were designed by screening the whole genome of Mycobacterium leprae TN strain (GenBank accession AL450380) for the presence of simple sequence repeats. One primer (TA)8CA3was synthesized and used for molecular amplification of ISSR-PCR. Results: We found that the efficacy of the AFB microscopy was 24.40%, whereas the efficacy of RLEP-PCR and ISSR-PCR was 63.09% and 73.21% (P = 0.000, 0.000, and 0.469), respectively. The area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curve for the comparison of three diagnostic methods was 0.845. An enhancement of 48.81% in the case detection rate by ISSR-PCR over AFB microscopy and 10.12% over RLEP-PCR was also found. Our study clearly reveals that ISSR-PCR is a better tool for diagnosis of leprosy than AFB microscopy and RLEP-PCR. Interestingly, both the PCR techniques RLEP-PCR and ISSR-PCR are able to detect samples which were negative for AFB microscopy. Conclusion: Thus, the demonstration of ISSR-PCR in SSS samples can provide a better sensitive and confirmative tool for early diagnosis of leprosy.
机译:背景:麻风病是一种传染病,并在2002年全球被淘汰。从那时起,从世界不同地区持续检测到新案件。未经治疗的麻风病例揭示了数百万细菌,是传播疾病的主要原因。目前,用酸 - 快性杆菌(AFB)显微镜检测麻风病,敏感性低于10%至5​​0%。临床发现与显微镜之间的相关性无法提供结论性案例检测。因此,在本研究中,我们与分子方法进行比较,即RLEP聚合酶链反应(RLEP-PCR)和单晶序列重复PCR(ISSR-PCR)作为检测麻风病的金标准。方法:在本研究中招募了168名临床诊断的麻风病患者,包括58例多元毛细血管和110名白细胞患者。针对显微镜和分子研究采用狭缝皮肤涂片样品。 RLEP-PCR的引物取自先前的报告。通过筛选分枝杆菌的全基因组分枝杆菌TN菌株(Genbank Accession Al450380)的全部基因组来设计简单序列重复。合成的一种底漆(TA)8CA3瓦斯并用于ISSR-PCR的分子扩增。结果:我们发现,AFB显微镜的功效分别为24.40%,而RLEP-PCR和ISSR-PCR的功效分别为63.09%和73.21%(p = 0.000,0.000和0.469)。用于比较三种诊断方法的接收器操作特性曲线下的区域为0.845。还发现了通过ISSR-PCR在AFB显微镜下进行48.81%的增强,并发现了10.12%的RLEP-PCR。我们的研究清楚地表明,ISSR-PCR是诊断麻风病的更好工具,而不是AFB显微镜和RLEP-PCR。有趣的是,PCR技术RLEP-PCR和ISSR-PCR都能够检测为AFB显微镜为阴性的样品。结论:因此,SSS样品中ISSR-PCR的证明可以提供更好的敏感和确认工具,用于早期诊断麻风病。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号