4.6 Article

Evaluation and Optimization of Microdrop Digital PCR for Detection of Serotype A and B Clostridium botulinum

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.860992

Keywords

Clostridium botulinum; droplet digital PCR; rapid clinical diagnosis; neurotoxin; q-PCR

Categories

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC1603800]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clostridium botulinum is the causative pathogen of botulism, and its high toxicity requires a sensitive detection method. This study used micro-drop digital PCR to detect more positive samples in clinical samples and shorten the enrichment time, which is important for laboratory diagnosis and epidemiological work.
Clostridium botulinum is the causative pathogen of botulism. Laboratory detection of C. botulinum is essential for clinical therapy treatment of botulism due to the difficulty in diagnosis, especially in infant botulism. The extreme toxicity of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) requires a sensitive detection method. Due to the detection limit of real-time quantitative PCR (q-PCR), a more sensitive detection method, micro-drop digital PCR (ddPCR) was applied in C. botulinum main serotypes A and B. The following performance criteria were evaluated by ddPCR: analytical sensitivity; repeatability; and diagnostic specificity. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.84 and 0.88 copies/mu l for BoNT A and B genes, respectively, by ddPCR with high specificity, compared to 5.04x10(2) and 6.91x10(2) copies/mu l by q-PCR. It was increased 10 times compared with q-PCR in spiked stool samples. This improvement in sensitivity was especially important in clinical samples as more positive samples were detected by digital PCR compared with q-PCR. Meanwhile, enrichment time for low bacteria content samples was shortened by four hours both in serotypes A and B C. botulinum by ddPCR compared with q-PCR, which are important for laboratory diagnosis and epidemiology work.

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