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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |