Literature DB >> 23992621

Performance of human fecal anaerobe-associated PCR-based assays in a multi-laboratory method evaluation study.

Blythe A Layton1, Yiping Cao, Darcy L Ebentier, Kaitlyn Hanley, Elisenda Ballesté, João Brandão, Muruleedhara Byappanahalli, Reagan Converse, Andreas H Farnleitner, Jennifer Gentry-Shields, Maribeth L Gidley, Michèle Gourmelon, Chang Soo Lee, Jiyoung Lee, Solen Lozach, Tania Madi, Wim G Meijer, Rachel Noble, Lindsay Peed, Georg H Reischer, Raquel Rodrigues, Joan B Rose, Alexander Schriewer, Chris Sinigalliano, Sangeetha Srinivasan, Jill Stewart, Laurie C Van De Werfhorst, Dan Wang, Richard Whitman, Stefan Wuertz, Jenny Jay, Patricia A Holden, Alexandria B Boehm, Orin Shanks, John F Griffith.   

Abstract

A number of PCR-based methods for detecting human fecal material in environmental waters have been developed over the past decade, but these methods have rarely received independent comparative testing in large multi-laboratory studies. Here, we evaluated ten of these methods (BacH, BacHum-UCD, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (BtH), BsteriF1, gyrB, HF183 endpoint, HF183 SYBR, HF183 Taqman(®), HumM2, and Methanobrevibacter smithii nifH (Mnif)) using 64 blind samples prepared in one laboratory. The blind samples contained either one or two fecal sources from human, wastewater or non-human sources. The assay results were assessed for presence/absence of the human markers and also quantitatively while varying the following: 1) classification of samples that were detected but not quantifiable (DNQ) as positive or negative; 2) reference fecal sample concentration unit of measure (such as culturable indicator bacteria, wet mass, total DNA, etc); and 3) human fecal source type (stool, sewage or septage). Assay performance using presence/absence metrics was found to depend on the classification of DNQ samples. The assays that performed best quantitatively varied based on the fecal concentration unit of measure and laboratory protocol. All methods were consistently more sensitive to human stools compared to sewage or septage in both the presence/absence and quantitative analysis. Overall, HF183 Taqman(®) was found to be the most effective marker of human fecal contamination in this California-based study.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bacteroidales; Bacteroides; Microbial source tracking; Water quality; qPCR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23992621     DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.05.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Water Res        ISSN: 0043-1354            Impact factor:   11.236


  30 in total

1.  Use of Bacteroidales microbial source tracking to monitor fecal contamination in fresh produce production.

Authors:  Kruti Ravaliya; Jennifer Gentry-Shields; Santos Garcia; Norma Heredia; Anna Fabiszewski de Aceituno; Faith E Bartz; Juan S Leon; Lee-Ann Jaykus
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Differential decomposition of bacterial and viral fecal indicators in common human pollution types.

Authors:  Pauline Wanjugi; Mano Sivaganesan; Asja Korajkic; Catherine A Kelty; Brian McMinn; Robert Ulrich; Valerie J Harwood; Orin C Shanks
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 11.236

3.  Data Acceptance Criteria for Standardized Human-Associated Fecal Source Identification Quantitative Real-Time PCR Methods.

Authors:  Orin C Shanks; Catherine A Kelty; Robin Oshiro; Richard A Haugland; Tania Madi; Lauren Brooks; Katharine G Field; Mano Sivaganesan
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Portable platform for rapid in-field identification of human fecal pollution in water.

Authors:  Yu Sherry Jiang; Timothy E Riedel; Jessica A Popoola; Barrett R Morrow; Sheng Cai; Andrew D Ellington; Sanchita Bhadra
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 11.236

5.  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

6.  Soil Ingestion is Associated with Child Diarrhea in an Urban Slum of Nairobi, Kenya.

Authors:  Valerie Bauza; R M Ocharo; Thanh H Nguyen; Jeremy S Guest
Journal:  Am J Trop Med Hyg       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 2.345

7.  Sources and persistence of fecal indicator bacteria and Bacteroidales in sand as measured by culture-based and culture-independent methods: A case study at Santa Monica Pier, California.

Authors:  Kathryn B Mika; Karina A Chavarria; Greg Imamura; Chay Tang; Robert Torres; Jennifer A Jay
Journal:  Water Air Soil Pollut       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 2.520

8.  Level of contamination in the feces of several species at major inland pollution sources in the drainage basin of Yeoja Bay, Republic of Korea.

Authors:  Sang Hyeon Jeong; Soon Bum Shin; Ji Hee Lee; Ji Young Kwon; Hee Chung Lee; Seon-Jae Kim; Kwang Soo Ha
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-02-08       Impact factor: 2.513

9.  Human-Associated Lachnospiraceae Genetic Markers Improve Detection of Fecal Pollution Sources in Urban Waters.

Authors:  Shuchen Feng; Melinda Bootsma; Sandra L McLellan
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  Distribution and Differential Survival of Traditional and Alternative Indicators of Fecal Pollution at Freshwater Beaches.

Authors:  Danielle D Cloutier; Sandra L McLellan
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 4.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.