Research ArticleANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

Rapid pathogen-specific phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing using digital LAMP quantification in clinical samples

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Translational Medicine  04 Oct 2017:
Vol. 9, Issue 410, eaal3693
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal3693
  • Fig. 1. Experimental workflow of the dAST method and computationally estimated operational space.

    (A) The workflow for detecting antibiotic susceptibility by measuring the quantity of a specific NA sequence (AST marker). Urine samples are incubated without and with antibiotics (ABX) (steps 1 and 2), AST markers are quantified in control (−ABX) and treated (+ABX) samples (step 3), and the CT ratios are analyzed (step 4). (B) Theoretical model that predicts a CT ratio as a function of pathogen DNA doubling time and antibiotic exposure time. The operational space gained by using digital counting compared with qPCR is outlined in red.

  • Fig. 2. dAST using dPCR is robust to the presence of high concentrations of commensal bacteria due to the specificity of NA amplification.

    (A) A cip-susceptible E. coli isolate and (B) a cip-resistant E. coli isolate from the urine of patients diagnosed with UTIs were exposed to cip (1.0 μg/ml) in the presence of varying amounts of Lj, a common urine commensal. Fold changes relative to time 0 were compared as described in (26) and used to determine susceptibility. (C) Susceptibility determined using the CT ratios after 15 min of antibiotic exposure for each concentration of Lj tested. n = 2 technical replicates for each biological sample. Error bars are 98% confidence intervals.

  • Fig. 3. Real-time LAMP optimization and compatibility with clinical samples.

    (A) Assay optimization protocol used to reduce the TTP from 15 to <5 min. Optimization was performed at a template concentration of ~700 or 0 copies per reaction. NTC, no template control. A value of 0.5 indicates that no amplification was observed. n = 1 for all TTP values. (B) Real-time fluorescence readout of amplified DNA for UTI urine samples containing E. coli (blue lines), healthy urine samples, urine samples containing gDNA of Lj, and urine samples containing human (Hs) gDNA (dashed brown lines). (C) TTP values for clinical UTI urine samples containing a range of pathogen concentrations. Error bars represent a single SD from the average of technical triplicates. n = 3 technical replicates for each TTP value.

  • Fig. 4. High-resolution single-molecule NA amplification using ultrafast dLAMP for dAST of clinical UTI urine samples.

    UTI urine samples with (A to E) antibiotic-susceptible and (F to J) antibiotic-resistant E. coli. (A and F) Real-time fluorescence amplification traces (200 of 1280 traces shown for clarity). NFU, normalized fluorescence units; dotted line, positive threshold. When the normalized fluorescence intensity of a compartment crosses the threshold, that compartment is counted as positive. (B and G) TTP distribution determined by counting the number of compartments that crossed the positive threshold at each time point. (C and H) Detected concentrations of the target dAST marker in control and antibiotic-treated samples for successive image cycles. Note that these curves are distinct from the amplification curves shown in (A) and (F). Gray lines represent 95% confidence intervals. P values were calculated using a Z test (see Statistical analysis). (D and I) Detected CT ratios over time. Dashed line indicates susceptibility threshold. (E and J) Comparison of the CT ratios for droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) after 2 hours and dLAMP after 6.7 min of amplification.

  • Fig. 5. Workflow of a sample-to-answer AST performed in less than 30 min.

    (A) A clinical UTI sample was added to media with and without cip and incubated for 15 min. (B) During the antibiotic exposure step, the optimized bulk LAMP assay was performed on NAs prepared from an aliquot of the urine sample. Amplification indicated the presence of E. coli at clinically relevant concentrations. (C) Aliquots of the control and antibiotic-treated samples were added to extraction buffer, NAs were prepared for quantification using dLAMP, and samples were rapidly partitioned using SlipChips. (D) dLAMP was monitored in real time, and a susceptibility call was determined after 6.7 min of amplification; data for one resistant and one susceptible sample are shown. P values were calculated using a Z test (see Statistical analysis). Gray lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

  • Fig. 6. dAST directly from clinical samples using dPCR and dLAMP for quantification.

    (A and C) Antibiotic susceptibility of 51 clinical E. coli–infected UTI samples determined using the CT ratios after 15 min of exposure to nit and cip (35 susceptible and 19 resistant; 3 samples were tested for both antibiotics). NA concentrations were quantified with dPCR (A) and dLAMP (C). (B and D) ROC curves for the dAST method as measured by dPCR (B) and dLAMP (D).

Supplementary Materials

  • www.sciencetranslationalmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/9/410/eaal3693/DC1

    Materials and Methods

    Fig. S1. Resolution of digital devices.

    Fig. S2. Real-time dLAMP DNA quantification of a UTI sample with nit treatment.

    Fig. S3. The dAST method tested with isolates with near-intermediate MICs.

    Fig. S4. Reproducibility of the dAST method with clinical urine samples.

    Table S1. Concentration of clinical urine samples.

    Table S2. Clinical samples used in this study.

    Table S3. Rapid phenotypic AST literature summary showing the state of the art.

    References (88101)

  • Supplementary Material for:

    Rapid pathogen-specific phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing using digital LAMP quantification in clinical samples

    Nathan G. Schoepp, Travis S. Schlappi, Matthew S. Curtis, Slava S. Butkovich, Shelley Miller, Romney M. Humphries, Rustem F. Ismagilov*

    *Corresponding author. Email: rustem.admin{at}caltech.edu

    Published 4 October 2017, Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaal3693 (2017)
    DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal3693

    This PDF file includes:

    • Materials and Methods
    • Fig. S1. Resolution of digital devices.
    • Fig. S2. Real-time dLAMP DNA quantification of a UTI sample with nit treatment.
    • Fig. S3. The dAST method tested with isolates with near-intermediate MICs.
    • Fig. S4. Reproducibility of the dAST method with clinical urine samples.
    • Table S1. Concentration of clinical urine samples.
    • Table S2. Clinical samples used in this study.
    • Table S3. Rapid phenotypic AST literature summary showing the state of the art.
    • References (88101)

    [Download PDF]

Navigate This Article