Table 2. Comparison between the RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP and RT-LAMP-LFD assays from field epithelial suspensions.
| Epithelial suspension | Asia 1 | A | SAT 1 | SAT 2 | |||||
| TUR 2/2013 | PAK 21/2012 | IRN 24/2012 | TUR 7/2013 | TUR 4/2013 | TAN 50/2012 | TAN 14/2012 | BOT 15/2012 | ||
| (a) RT-qPCR (Ct) | No Ct | 12.52 | 12.54 | 13.93 | 12.6 | 19.33 | 25.65 | 14.75 | 18.79 |
| (b) RT-LAMP (Tp) | No Ct | 26.41 | 20.34 | 23.21 | 17.74 | 30.63 | 47.82 | 21.44 | 27.88 |
| (c) AGE | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| (d) Svanova LFD | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| (e) RT-LAMP-LFD | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
(a) RT-qPCR amplification Ct values corresponding to each of the 1∶5 dilutions of FMDV epithelial suspensions from a range of serotypes; (b) RT-LAMP amplification result with Tp values given for each epithelial suspension; (c) AGE analysis of LAMP-LFD reaction, spanning the same epithelial suspensions as in (a) and (b); (d) epithelial suspension analysed by Svanova antigen LFD; (e) The RT-LAMP-LFD reactions from (c) applied to the LFD device.