We developed and evaluated several LAMP assays for the simple and rapid detection of clinically important uropathogens (i.e. E. coli, K. pneumoniae, E. faecalis, P. mirabilis) and genes encoding the most widespread cefotaximases (CTX-M group 1, including CTX-15 the most widespread cefotaximase detected in Madagascar).
The overall sensitivity of the LAMP assays was around 1.5 103 CFU/mL which corresponds to the threshold of bacteriuria (103 CFU/mL for bacteria such as E. coli, enterobacteria other than E. coli and Enterococcus) associated with a leucocyturia > 104/mL in symptomatic patients [1]. This sensitivity was 10 to 100 time higher than that of the study of Etchebarne BE et al. (2017) which was 1.10 105 CFU/mL for LAMP targeting E. coli, 50 103 CFU/mL for K. pneumoniae, 150 103 CFU/mL for E. faecalis and 20 103 CFU/mL for P. mirabilis [29]. However, Etchebarne BE et al., performed a DNA extraction by heating.
In our study, we have demonstrated that a LAMP assay applied to urine samples without an extraction step is possible. The five LAMP assays we tested herein were all found specific. The side-by-side performance of LAMP and culture was based on the test of 161 urine samples. The LAMP assays were able to detect all K. pneumoniae, E. faecalis, P. mirabilis and CTX-M group 1 resistance genes, but missed one E. coli in one infected urine. The LAMP assays detected additionally two E. coli, eight K. pneumoniae and two E. faecalis infected urines, which may be explained by the higher analytical sensitivity of the LAMP assays compared to culture results.. From practical point of view, this LAMP method is simple and rapid. It did not require a complex DNA extraction step. LAMP assays provided a significantly shorter turnaround time compared to culture (1h30 vs 3 days).
Comparing to other studies, the specificity values of our LAMP assays to detect E. coli (99%), K. pneumoniae (95%) and E. faecalis (99%) were close to those found by Rödel et al. (2017), 97% (n = 157) for E. coli, 99% (n = 157) for K. pneumoniae and 98% (n = 71) for E. faecalis. It is worthwhile to mention that the latter assays were performed in blood culture and the amplification were carried out using the eazyplex® commercial test and Genie II machine [30]. Additionally, Etchebarne et al. (2017) found similar results for overall specificities (97%), using the culture as a reference method [29]. When compared to culture of urine, we obtained eight false positive results with the K. pneumoniae-LAMP assay on urines which we could not investigate in this study. Similarly, Dong et al. (2012) detected seven false positive in 110 K. pneumoniae clinical sputum with PCR as reference method [31]. However, this team and others obtained the expected target sequences after sequencing the LAMP products [31–33] suggesting that the false positives were most probably true positives and thus adding evidence to the superior sensitivity of the LAMP assay [34, 35].
The potential benefit of the LAMP assays developed in this study is their ability to detect not only bacteria responsible for UTI but also the most common resistance to C3G antibiotics, the CTX-M group 1. The early diagnosis of this gene could lead to improving the antibiotic therapy and antimicrobial stewardship.
We did not include DNA extraction steps; simplifying considerably the procedure. LAMP assays have shown a significant tolerance to amplification inhibiting substances derived from a number of biological samples including urine [36–38]. Thereby, some LAMP assays with high sensitivity and simple procedure for DNA extraction have been developed for molecular detection of bacterial [39] and parasitic [40] infections in urine samples. Additionally, a simple DNA extraction method by heating has been successfully applied with other types of clinical samples, such as blood in the LAMP assay for Plasmodium [41] and cutaneous swabs for the detection of Leishmania species [42]. In the study of Gandasegui et al. (2015), among the three DNA extraction methods tested, the higher performance of the LAMP assay for S. haematobium detection in urine samples was obtained after heating the pellet obtained after centrifugation of the samples and using it as template for the LAMP reaction. The heating step was necessary to free, besides S. haematobium DNA, DNA from the parasite eggs [43]. Based on the previous studies, we performed a centrifugation and a heat treatment as a simple pre-treatment of samples. In addition, the LAMP reaction was performed in a water bath and did not require a thermal cycler. The amplification products were detected visually by observing a color change without the need of any other equipment. Finally, the turnaround time of analysis including preparation of the sample, the LAMP assay and the interpretation of the products was around 90 min. All these characteristics advocate the use of this method as a simple, inexpensive and performant assay adapted to the settings encountered in low- and middle-income countries. However, this study has some limitations. In order to diagnose, treat and manage UTIs, besides the presence of bacteria in a concentration > 103 CFU/mL, the leucocyturia, the aspects of the urine and symptoms of the patient has to be taken into account. Besides, other pathogens such as Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter spp and Staphylococcus spp. could be responsible for UTI and those are not yet covered in our current assays. In our perspective, the UTI-LAMP assays were developed as alternative tools for health facilities in low-income countries where culture cannot be implemented. However, if culture is done in routine it should not be disregarded and the LAMP assays could be implemented as a complement to culture with the aim to accelerate the detection of resistant pathogens. Additionally, a quantitative approach could be used, performing real-time turbidity measurements of the LAMP reaction and extrapolating the time to result with the CFU/mL of the target pathogen [31][44].