Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39068490›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2024

Refining the Schistosoma haematobium recombinase polymerase amplification (Sh-RPA) assay: moving towards point-of-care use in endemic settings.

Owain Donnelly, Silvia Mesquita, John Archer, Said M Ali, Zikmund Bartonicek, Elena B Lugli, Bonnie L Webster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Owain Donnelly *Wolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
Silvia Mesquita *Wolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
John ArcherWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
Said M AliPublic Health Laboratory-Ivo de Carneri, P.O. Box 122, Chake-Chake, Pemba, United Republic of Tanzania.
Zikmund BartonicekWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
Elena B LugliWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
Bonnie L WebsterWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK. b.webster@nhm.ac.uk.

Funding

Coalition for Operational Research on Neglected Tropical Diseases (COR-NTD) OPP1190754Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001Natural Environment Research Council NE/L002485/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrogenital schistosomiasis is caused by the parasitic trematode Schistosoma haematobium. Sensitive and specific point-of-care diagnostics are needed for elimination of this disease. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) assays meet these criteria, and an assay to diagnose S. haematobium has been developed (Sh-RPA). However, false-positive results can occur, and optimisation of reaction conditions to mitigate these is needed. Ease of use and compatibility of DNA extraction methods must also be considered.

methodsUsing synthetic DNA, S. haematobium genomic DNA (gDNA), and urine samples from clinical cases, Sh-RPA reactions incorporating different betaine concentrations (0 M, 1 M, 2.5 M, 12.5 M) and the sample-to-water ratios were tested to determine effects on assay specificity and sensitivity. In addition, five commercial DNA extraction kits suitable for use in resource-limited settings were used to obtain gDNA from single S. haematobium eggs and evaluated in terms of DNA quality, quantity, and compatibility with the Sh-RPA assay. All samples were also evaluated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to confirm DNA acquisition.

resultsThe analytical sensitivity of the Sh-RPA with all betaine concentrations was ≥ 10 copies of the synthetic Dra1 standard and 0.1 pg of S. haematobium gDNA. The addition of betaine improved Sh-RPA assay specificity in all reaction conditions, and the addition of 2.5 M of betaine together with the maximal possible sample volume of 12.7 µl proved to be the optimum reaction conditions. DNA was successfully isolated from a single S. haematobium egg using all five commercial DNA extraction kits, but the Sh-RPA performance of these kits varied, with one proving to be incompatible with RPA reactions.

conclusionsThe addition of 2.5 M of betaine to Sh-RPA reactions improved reaction specificity whilst having no detrimental effect on sensitivity. This increases the robustness of the assay, advancing the feasibility of using the Sh-RPA assay in resource-limited settings. The testing of commercial extraction kits proved that crude, rapid, and simple methods are sufficient for obtaining DNA from single S. haematobium eggs, and that these extracts can be used with Sh-RPA in most cases. However, the observed incompatibility of specific kits with Sh-RPA highlights the need for each stage of a molecular diagnostic platform to be robustly tested prior to implementation.

Indexed as

Nucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPoint-of-Care SystemsSchistosoma haematobiumSchistosomiasis haematobiaSensitivity and SpecificityAnimalsDNA, HelminthHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesRecombinasesDNA, HelminthRecombinasesDiagnosticIsothermalMolecularPoint-of-careRecombinase polymerase amplificationSchistosoma haematobiumSchistosomiasisUrogenital schistosomiasis

Identifiers

PMID39068490
PMCPMC11283713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.