Table 2.
Comparison of RT-LAMP and rRT-PCR for detection of H7N9 AIV in 135 clinical samples
| Specimen type | Total no. of samples | No. of samples positive for indicated subtype using: |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H7-rRT-PCR | H7-RT-LAMP | N9-rRT-PCR | N9-RT-LAMP | ||
| Oral swabs from H7N9 patients | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 |
| BALFa samples from H7N9 patients | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Oral swabs from chickens | 25 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Cloacal scrapings from: | |||||
| Chickens | 58 | 15 | 15 | 4 | 14 |
| Ducks | 20 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Meat pigeons | 12 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| SPF chickensb | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 135 | 34c | 34 | 14 | 32 |
a
BALF, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.
b
Cloacal scrapings from SPF chickens served as the negative controls in the experiments.
c
These 34 positive sample were further confirmed by sequencing analyses.