Cargando…
Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods
The demand for rapid methods for the quantification of pathogens is increasing. Among these methods, those based on nucleic acids amplification (quantitative PCRs) are the most widespread worldwide. Together with the qPCR, a new approach named digital PCR (dPCR), has rapidly gained importance. The a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487435/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28702010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01174 |
_version_ | 1783246461678387200 |
---|---|
author | Ricchi, Matteo Bertasio, Cristina Boniotti, Maria B. Vicari, Nadia Russo, Simone Tilola, Michela Bellotti, Marco A. Bertasi, Barbara |
author_facet | Ricchi, Matteo Bertasio, Cristina Boniotti, Maria B. Vicari, Nadia Russo, Simone Tilola, Michela Bellotti, Marco A. Bertasi, Barbara |
author_sort | Ricchi, Matteo |
collection | PubMed |
description | The demand for rapid methods for the quantification of pathogens is increasing. Among these methods, those based on nucleic acids amplification (quantitative PCRs) are the most widespread worldwide. Together with the qPCR, a new approach named digital PCR (dPCR), has rapidly gained importance. The aim of our study was to compare the results obtained using two different dPCR systems and one qPCR in the quantification of three different bacterial pathogens: Listeria monocytogenes, Francisella tularensis, and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. For this purpose, three pre-existing qPCRs were used, while the same primers and probes, as well as PCR conditions, were transferred to two different dPCR systems: the QX200 (Bio-Rad) and the Quant Studio 3D (Applied Biosystems). The limits of detection and limits of quantification for all pathogens, and all PCR approaches applied, were determined using genomic pure DNAs. The quantification of unknown decimal suspensions of the three bacteria obtained by the three different PCR approaches was compared through the Linear Regression and Bland and Altman analyses. Our results suggest that, both dPCRs are able to quantify the same amount of bacteria, while the comparison among dPCRs and qPCRs, showed both over and under-estimation of the bacteria present in the unknown suspensions. Our results showed qPCR over-estimated the amount of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis and F. tularensis cells. On the contrary, qPCR, compared to QX200 dPCR, under-estimated the amount of L. monocytogenes cells. However, the maximum difference among PCRs approaches was <0.5 Log(10), while cultural methods underestimated the number of bacteria by one to two Log(10) for Francisella tularensis and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. On the other hand, cultural and PCRs methods quantified the same amount of bacteria for L. monocytogenes, suggesting for this last pathogen, PCRs approaches can be considered as a valid alternative to the cultural ones. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5487435 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54874352017-07-12 Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods Ricchi, Matteo Bertasio, Cristina Boniotti, Maria B. Vicari, Nadia Russo, Simone Tilola, Michela Bellotti, Marco A. Bertasi, Barbara Front Microbiol Microbiology The demand for rapid methods for the quantification of pathogens is increasing. Among these methods, those based on nucleic acids amplification (quantitative PCRs) are the most widespread worldwide. Together with the qPCR, a new approach named digital PCR (dPCR), has rapidly gained importance. The aim of our study was to compare the results obtained using two different dPCR systems and one qPCR in the quantification of three different bacterial pathogens: Listeria monocytogenes, Francisella tularensis, and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. For this purpose, three pre-existing qPCRs were used, while the same primers and probes, as well as PCR conditions, were transferred to two different dPCR systems: the QX200 (Bio-Rad) and the Quant Studio 3D (Applied Biosystems). The limits of detection and limits of quantification for all pathogens, and all PCR approaches applied, were determined using genomic pure DNAs. The quantification of unknown decimal suspensions of the three bacteria obtained by the three different PCR approaches was compared through the Linear Regression and Bland and Altman analyses. Our results suggest that, both dPCRs are able to quantify the same amount of bacteria, while the comparison among dPCRs and qPCRs, showed both over and under-estimation of the bacteria present in the unknown suspensions. Our results showed qPCR over-estimated the amount of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis and F. tularensis cells. On the contrary, qPCR, compared to QX200 dPCR, under-estimated the amount of L. monocytogenes cells. However, the maximum difference among PCRs approaches was <0.5 Log(10), while cultural methods underestimated the number of bacteria by one to two Log(10) for Francisella tularensis and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. On the other hand, cultural and PCRs methods quantified the same amount of bacteria for L. monocytogenes, suggesting for this last pathogen, PCRs approaches can be considered as a valid alternative to the cultural ones. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5487435/ /pubmed/28702010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01174 Text en Copyright © 2017 Ricchi, Bertasio, Boniotti, Vicari, Russo, Tilola, Bellotti and Bertasi. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Microbiology Ricchi, Matteo Bertasio, Cristina Boniotti, Maria B. Vicari, Nadia Russo, Simone Tilola, Michela Bellotti, Marco A. Bertasi, Barbara Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods |
title | Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods |
title_full | Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods |
title_fullStr | Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods |
title_short | Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods |
title_sort | comparison among the quantification of bacterial pathogens by qpcr, dpcr, and cultural methods |
topic | Microbiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487435/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28702010 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01174 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ricchimatteo comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT bertasiocristina comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT boniottimariab comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT vicarinadia comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT russosimone comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT tilolamichela comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT bellottimarcoa comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods AT bertasibarbara comparisonamongthequantificationofbacterialpathogensbyqpcrdpcrandculturalmethods |