4.6 Article

Comparative study of a new quantitative real-time PCR targeting the xylulose-5-phosphate/fructose-6-phosphate phosphoketolase bifidobacterial gene (xfp) in faecal samples with two fluorescence in situ hybridization methods

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 108, Issue 1, Pages 181-193

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04408.x

Keywords

Bifidobacterium spp; faeces; FISH; flow cytometry; multiplex qPCR; xfp gene

Funding

  1. ETH-grant [TH-21/02-04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To detect and enumerate bifidobacteria in faeces with a new quantitative multiplex real-time PCR (qPCR) method and to compare the results obtained with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods. Methods and Results: A multiplex qPCR assay was developed, which enabled the enumeration of Bifidobacterium spp. by targeting the bifidobacterial xylulose-5-phosphate/fructose-6-phosphate phosphoketolase gene (xfp) and total bacteria using universal Eub-primers targeting 16S rRNA gene from the domain bacteria. The qPCR assay showed high sensitivity and specificity and a low detection limit of about 2 center dot 5 x 103 bifidobacterial cells per gram of faeces. The qPCR results were compared with FISH combined with microscopy or flow cytometry (FCM). No statistical differences among bifidobacterial counts averages measured in adult faeces with the three methods were observed. Total bacterial count averages were higher with the FISH method coupled with microscopic analyses compared to FISH with FCM, whereas total cell numbers estimated by qPCR were intermediate between the two FISH methods. Conclusions: The new qPCR assay was shown to be sensitive, rapid and accurate for enumerating bifidobacteria in faeces. Significance and Impact of the Study: This method is a valuable alternative for other molecular methods for detecting faecal bifidobacteria, especially when their counts are below the detection limit of the FISH methods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available