4.6 Article

Biosynthetic Enhancement of the Detection of Bacteria by the Polymerase Chain Reaction

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086433

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR from the National Institutes of Health [R21DE021510]
  2. Life Sciences Discovery Fund [7205249]
  3. AttoDx, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular viability testing (MVT) was previously reported to specifically detect viable bacterial cells in complex samples. In MVT, brief nutritional stimulation induces viable cells, but not non-viable cells, to produce abundant amounts of species-specific ribosomal RNA precursors (pre-rRNA). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is used to quantify specific pre-rRNAs in a stimulated aliquot relative to a non-stimulated control. In addition to excluding background signal from nonviable cells and from free DNA, we report here that MVT increases the analytical sensitivity of qPCR when detecting viable cells. Side-by-side limit-of-detection comparisons showed that MVT is 5-fold to >10-fold more sensitive than standard (static) DNA-targeted qPCR when detecting diverse bacterial pathogens (Aeromonas hydrophila, Acinetobacter baumannii, Listeria monocytogenes, Mycobacterium avium, and Staphylococcus aureus) in serum, milk, and tap water. Sensitivity enhancement may come from the elevated copy number of pre-rRNA relative to genomic DNA, and also from the ratiometric measurement which reduces ambiguity associated with weak or borderline signals. We also report that MVT eliminates false positive signals from bacteria that have been inactivated by moderately elevated temperatures (pasteurization), a condition that can confound widely-used cellular integrity tests that utilize membrane-impermeant compounds such as propidium iodide (PI) or propidium monoazide (PMA) to differentiate viable from inactivated bacteria. MVT enables the sensitive and specific detection of very small numbers of viable bacteria in complex matrices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据