Cargando…

Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection

Immediate and reliable pathogen detection in large numbers of samples is essential in wildlife disease monitoring and is often realized by DNA-based techniques. Pooling samples increases processing efficiency and reduces processing costs, and has been suggested as a viable technique for quantitative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sabino-Pinto, Joana, Martel, An, Pasmans, Frank, Steinfartz, Sebastian, Vences, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6445426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30939146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214405
_version_ 1783408191558647808
author Sabino-Pinto, Joana
Martel, An
Pasmans, Frank
Steinfartz, Sebastian
Vences, Miguel
author_facet Sabino-Pinto, Joana
Martel, An
Pasmans, Frank
Steinfartz, Sebastian
Vences, Miguel
author_sort Sabino-Pinto, Joana
collection PubMed
description Immediate and reliable pathogen detection in large numbers of samples is essential in wildlife disease monitoring and is often realized by DNA-based techniques. Pooling samples increases processing efficiency and reduces processing costs, and has been suggested as a viable technique for quantitative PCR detection of fungal amphibian pathogens of the genus Batrachochytrium. For these fungi, this diagnostic method has been validated by in vitro set ups that provided controlled test conditions but did not take into account potential effects from amphibian skin compounds (e.g. skin secretions and Microbiota) on the approach. Some of these skin compounds are known to cause PCR inhibition in single sample applications and could lead to false negative reactions and thereby hamper pathogen detection. In this study we examined the effect of skin compounds on the pooled extraction method by swabbing individuals of seven amphibian species (one Anura and six Caudata) prior to the inoculation of the swabs with chytrid zoospores. For each species, swabs were extracted in pools of different sizes (from one to four swabs) with only one swab per pool being inoculated with zoospores. There were no significant differences regarding the ability to detect zoospores when comparing pool sizes for any species, with a tendency for more false negatives when the inoculated swab had been inoculated with a single zoospore. This study provides further in vivo evidence for the viability of the pooled extraction method for DNA-based detection of pathogens.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6445426
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64454262019-04-17 Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection Sabino-Pinto, Joana Martel, An Pasmans, Frank Steinfartz, Sebastian Vences, Miguel PLoS One Research Article Immediate and reliable pathogen detection in large numbers of samples is essential in wildlife disease monitoring and is often realized by DNA-based techniques. Pooling samples increases processing efficiency and reduces processing costs, and has been suggested as a viable technique for quantitative PCR detection of fungal amphibian pathogens of the genus Batrachochytrium. For these fungi, this diagnostic method has been validated by in vitro set ups that provided controlled test conditions but did not take into account potential effects from amphibian skin compounds (e.g. skin secretions and Microbiota) on the approach. Some of these skin compounds are known to cause PCR inhibition in single sample applications and could lead to false negative reactions and thereby hamper pathogen detection. In this study we examined the effect of skin compounds on the pooled extraction method by swabbing individuals of seven amphibian species (one Anura and six Caudata) prior to the inoculation of the swabs with chytrid zoospores. For each species, swabs were extracted in pools of different sizes (from one to four swabs) with only one swab per pool being inoculated with zoospores. There were no significant differences regarding the ability to detect zoospores when comparing pool sizes for any species, with a tendency for more false negatives when the inoculated swab had been inoculated with a single zoospore. This study provides further in vivo evidence for the viability of the pooled extraction method for DNA-based detection of pathogens. Public Library of Science 2019-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6445426/ /pubmed/30939146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214405 Text en © 2019 Sabino-Pinto et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sabino-Pinto, Joana
Martel, An
Pasmans, Frank
Steinfartz, Sebastian
Vences, Miguel
Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection
title Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection
title_full Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection
title_fullStr Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection
title_full_unstemmed Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection
title_short Pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qPCR detection of amphibian chytrid infection
title_sort pooling skin swabs does not inhibit qpcr detection of amphibian chytrid infection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6445426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30939146
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214405
work_keys_str_mv AT sabinopintojoana poolingskinswabsdoesnotinhibitqpcrdetectionofamphibianchytridinfection
AT martelan poolingskinswabsdoesnotinhibitqpcrdetectionofamphibianchytridinfection
AT pasmansfrank poolingskinswabsdoesnotinhibitqpcrdetectionofamphibianchytridinfection
AT steinfartzsebastian poolingskinswabsdoesnotinhibitqpcrdetectionofamphibianchytridinfection
AT vencesmiguel poolingskinswabsdoesnotinhibitqpcrdetectionofamphibianchytridinfection