why PCR method is preferred over LAMP as lamp is simple, less time consuming and cheaper then PCR? need valuable suggestions
A study on comparison of LAMP and PCR assays, RT-qPCR showed the greatest sensitivity, followed by nested PCR, the LAMP assay, and conventional PCR. The LAMP assay proved to be applicable to field detection, potentially eliminating the need for expensive thermal cyclers, gel electrophoresis, and time-consuming DNA extraction methods. Pl refer the following link:-
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02089/full
A study on comparison of LAMP and PCR assays, RT-qPCR showed the greatest sensitivity, followed by nested PCR, the LAMP assay, and conventional PCR. The LAMP assay proved to be applicable to field detection, potentially eliminating the need for expensive thermal cyclers, gel electrophoresis, and time-consuming DNA extraction methods. Pl refer the following link:-
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02089/full
Bilal Sajid you can follow the attached link :
Article Loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays as a ra...
Article Diagnosing COVID-19: The Disease and Tools for Detection
In the manuscript, if I understood correctly, the reported sensitivity for real-time qPCR is thee orders of magnitude (1000-fold) higher than for LAMP. Hence, you can pool about 1000 samples in a single qPCR to get the same sensitivity as in LAMP. This possibility makes qPCR considerably cheaper in practice, particularily when the rate of samples with infection is low (so that there is a reasonable fraction of negative pools that do not need to be splitted for subsequent identification of the infected samples). If instrumentation is a problem, the product generated by qPCR can be detected in-tube using EtBr or better SYBR Green and an UV lamp.
- Badges
- Science method