Literature DB >> 20527919

Relationship and variation of qPCR and culturable Enterococci estimates in ambient surface waters are predictable.

Richard L Whitman1, Zhongfu Ge, Meredith B Nevers, Alexandria B Boehm, Eunice C Chern, Richard A Haugland, Ashley M Lukasik, Marirosa Molina, Kasia Przybyla-Kelly, Dawn A Shively, Emily M White, Richard G Zepp, Muruleedhara N Byappanahalli.   

Abstract

The quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method provides rapid estimates of fecal indicator bacteria densities that have been indicated to be useful in the assessment of water quality. Primarily because this method provides faster results than standard culture-based methods, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering its use as a basis for revised ambient water quality criteria. In anticipation of this possibility, we sought to examine the relationship between qPCR-based and culture-based estimates of enterococci in surface waters. Using data from several research groups, we compared enterococci estimates by the two methods in water samples collected from 37 sites across the United States. A consistent linear pattern in the relationship between cell equivalents (CCE), based on the qPCR method, and colony-forming units (CFU), based on the traditional culturable method, was significant (P < 0.05) at most sites. A linearly decreasing variance of CCE with increasing CFU levels was significant (P < 0.05) or evident for all sites. Both marine and freshwater sites under continuous influence of point-source contamination tended to reveal a relatively constant proportion of CCE to CFU. The consistency in the mean and variance patterns of CCE versus CFU indicates that the relationship of results based on these two methods is more predictable at high CFU levels (e.g., log(10)CFU > 2.0/100 mL) while uncertainty increases at lower CFU values. It was further noted that the relative error in replicated qPCR estimates was generally higher than that in replicated culture counts even at relatively high target levels, suggesting a greater need for replicated analyses in the qPCR method to reduce relative error. Further studies evaluating the relationship between culture and qPCR should take into account analytical uncertainty as well as potential differences in results of these methods that may arise from sample variability, different sources of pollution, and environmental factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20527919     DOI: 10.1021/es9028974

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


  11 in total

1.  Correlation between quantitative PCR and culture-based methods for measuring Enterococcus spp. over various temporal scales at three California marine beaches.

Authors:  Reagan R Converse; John F Griffith; Rachel T Noble; Richard A Haugland; Kenneth C Schiff; Stephen B Weisberg
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Comparison of rapid quantitative PCR-based and conventional culture-based methods for enumeration of Enterococcus spp. and Escherichia coli in recreational waters.

Authors:  Rachel T Noble; A Denene Blackwood; John F Griffith; Charles D McGee; Stephen B Weisberg
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 3.  Enterococci in the environment.

Authors:  Muruleedhara N Byappanahalli; Meredith B Nevers; Asja Korajkic; Zachery R Staley; Valerie J Harwood
Journal:  Microbiol Mol Biol Rev       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 11.056

4.  Comparison of the multiple-sample means with composite sample results for fecal indicator bacteria by quantitative PCR and culture.

Authors:  Reagan R Converse; Larry J Wymer; Alfred P Dufour; Timothy J Wade
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Occurrence and persistence of bacterial pathogens and indicator organisms in beach sand along the California coast.

Authors:  Kevan M Yamahara; Lauren M Sassoubre; Kelly D Goodwin; Alexandria B Boehm
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  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

7.  Distribution of genetic markers of fecal pollution on a freshwater sandy shoreline in proximity to wastewater effluent.

Authors:  Jessica J Eichmiller; Randall E Hicks; Michael J Sadowsky
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 9.028

8.  Detection of human fecal contamination by nifH gene quantification of marine waters in the coastal beaches of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Authors:  Samara Sant'Anna Oliveira; Marcos Henrique Ferreira Sorgine; Kayo Bianco; Leonardo Henriques Pinto; Camila Barreto; Rodolpho Mattos Albano; Alexander Machado Cardoso; Maysa Mandetta Clementino
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 4.223

9.  Underwater application of quantitative PCR on an ocean mooring.

Authors:  Christina M Preston; Adeline Harris; John P Ryan; Brent Roman; Roman Marin; Scott Jensen; Cheri Everlove; James Birch; John M Dzenitis; Douglas Pargett; Masao Adachi; Kendra Turk; Jonathon P Zehr; Christopher A Scholin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Molecular tools for bathing water assessment in Europe: Balancing social science research with a rapidly developing environmental science evidence-base.

Authors:  David M Oliver; Nick D Hanley; Melanie van Niekerk; David Kay; A Louise Heathwaite; Sharyl J M Rabinovici; Julie L Kinzelman; Lora E Fleming; Jonathan Porter; Sabina Shaikh; Rob Fish; Sue Chilton; Julie Hewitt; Elaine Connolly; Andy Cummins; Klaus Glenk; Calum McPhail; Eric McRory; Alistair McVittie; Amanna Giles; Suzanne Roberts; Katherine Simpson; Dugald Tinch; Ted Thairs; Lisa M Avery; Andy J A Vinten; Bill D Watts; Richard S Quilliam
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 5.129

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.