Trypanosomiasis
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Njiru, Z.K., Constantine, C.C., Guya, S. et al. 2005. The use of ITS1 rDNA PCR in detecting pathogenic African trypanosomes
- PCR with primers targeting the Internal Transcribed Spacer allows for species-specific identification of Trypanosomiasis. The ITS region varies between species but lies within a highly conserved region of DNA. The primer set facillitates differentiation between nine species by size comparison after running the PCR products on a gel. The gene of the non-pathogenic trypanosome T. theileri is not amplified with this method.
Haji, I.J., Sugimoto, C., Kajino, K. et al. 2015. Determination of the prevalence of trypanosome species in cattle from Monduli district, northern Tanzania, by loop mediated isothermal amplification.
- LAMP assays were used to detect infection from the three most economically relevant species of Trypanosoma which cause Bovine African Trypanosomiasis. T. vivax was detected with primers targeting unique satelite DNA. T. congolense was detected via primers which targeted the 18S rRNA gene. T. brucei rhodesiense was detected by targeting the SRA gene which provided high specificity even against the closely related T. brucei brucei. LAMP detection was 14 times more sensitive than traditional microscopy techniques. Rates of false negatives and false positives were not included in this study.
Laohasinnarong, D., Thekisoe, O.M.M., Malele, I. et al. 2011. Prevalence of Trypanosoma sp. in cattle from Tanzania estimated by conventional PCR and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)
- Several targets for LAMP and PCR were employed to detect Trypanosomiasis in cattle from Uganda. Template DNA came from T. brucei rhodesiense and T. congolense. The targeted genes included SRA, TviCatL, and KIN. TviCatL-PCR was more sensitive than KIN-PCR for T. vivax. However, this result may be confounded by mixed infection and small sample sizes for T. vivax infection. KIN-PCR was sensitive for T. congolense and T. brucei rhodesiense detection. PFR-LAMP was more sensitive than any of the PCR methods even though PFR-PCR was least sensitive. Based on the sequence and specificity of PFR-PCR, PFR-LAMP is expected to be highly selective too, though selectivity was not directly measured.