Literature DB >> 17539537

Mitochondrial multiplex real-time PCR as a source tracking method in fecal-contaminated effluents.

Jane M Caldwell1, Morgan E Raley, Jay F Levine.   

Abstract

Multiplex real-time PCR amplifying fecal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) combined with rapid, crude DNA preparations are promising additions to surface water source tracking methods. Amplification of eukaryotic mitochondrial DNA identifies the fecal source directly and can be used in conjunction with other intestinal microbial methods to characterize effluents. Species-specific primers and dual-labeled probes for human, swine, and bovine NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) genes were created for multiplex real-time PCR in feces and effluent slurries. The linear range of the multiplex assay was 10(2)-10(7) mtDNA copies for human, bovine, and swine effluent in combination (equal volumes). PCR amplification efficiencies for bovine, human, and swine mtDNA when assayed in combination were 93, 107, and 92% respectively. Linear regression correlation coefficients (r2) were 0.99 for all standard curves except for human mtDNA in combination (r2 = 0.95). Multiplex amplification of bovine, human, and swine mtDNA (ND5) exhibited no cross-reactions between the effluents from three species of interest. Also, no cross-reactions were observed with effluents of other vertebrates: sheep, goat, horse, dog, cat, Canada goose, broiler, layer, turkey, and tilapia. Performed as a blind test, the PCR operator was able to correctly identify all but two effluent challenge samples (10/12 or 83% correct) with no false positives (22/22 or 100% correct). The multiplex assay had a tendency to detect the species of highest mtDNA concentration only. Better detection of all three species in a combination of human, bovine, and swine effluents was accomplished by running each real-time PCR primer/ probe set singly. Real-time PCR detection limit was calculated as 2.0 x 10(6) mitochondrial copies or 0.2 g of human feces per 100 mL effluent. Some carry-over mtDNA PCR signal from consumed beef, but not pork, was found in feces of human volunteers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17539537     DOI: 10.1021/es062912s

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  17 in total

1.  Elucidating Waterborne Pathogen Presence and Aiding Source Apportionment in an Impaired Stream.

Authors:  Jennifer Weidhaas; Angela Anderson; Rubayat Jamal
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  A case study characterizing animal fecal sources in surface water using a mitochondrial DNA marker.

Authors:  John P Bucci; Michelle D Shattuck; Semra A Aytur; Richard Carey; William H McDowell
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Presence of microbial and chemical source tracking markers in roof-harvested rainwater and catchment systems for the detection of fecal contamination.

Authors:  M Waso; T Ndlovu; P H Dobrowsky; S Khan; W Khan
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Analysis of human mitochondrial DNA sequences from fecally polluted environmental waters as a tool to study population diversity.

Authors:  Vikram Kapoor; Michael Elk; Carlos Toledo-Hernandez; Jorge W Santo Domingo
Journal:  AIMS Environ Sci       Date:  2017

5.  Decay of bacterial pathogens, fecal indicators, and real-time quantitative PCR genetic markers in manure-amended soils.

Authors:  Shane W Rogers; Matthew Donnelly; Lindsay Peed; Catherine A Kelty; Sumona Mondal; Zirong Zhong; Orin C Shanks
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Molecular indicators used in the development of predictive models for microbial source tracking.

Authors:  Elisenda Ballesté; Xavier Bonjoch; Lluís A Belanche; Anicet R Blanch
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 4.792

7.  Improving correlation of wastewater SARS-CoV-2 gene copy numbers with COVID-19 public health cases using readily available biomarkers.

Authors:  Justin M Hutchison; Zhengxi Li; Chi-Ning Chang; Yasawantha Hiripitiyage; Megan Wittman; Belinda S M Sturm
Journal:  FEMS Microbes       Date:  2022-04-01

8.  Coherence among different microbial source tracking markers in a small agricultural stream with or without livestock exclusion practices.

Authors:  Graham Wilkes; Julie Brassard; Thomas A Edge; Victor Gannon; Cassandra C Jokinen; Tineke H Jones; Romain Marti; Norman F Neumann; Norma J Ruecker; Mark Sunohara; Edward Topp; David R Lapen
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 9.  Waterborne pathogens: detection methods and challenges.

Authors:  Flor Yazmín Ramírez-Castillo; Abraham Loera-Muro; Mario Jacques; Philippe Garneau; Francisco Javier Avelar-González; Josée Harel; Alma Lilián Guerrero-Barrera
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2015-05-21

10.  No filters, no fridges: a method for preservation of water samples for eDNA analysis.

Authors:  Kelly E Williams; Kathryn P Huyvaert; Antoinette J Piaggio
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2016-06-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.