4.7 Article

Development and application of a multiplex PCR assay for rapid detection of 4 major bacterial pathogens in ducks

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 92, 期 5, 页码 1164-1170

出版社

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.3382/ps.2012-02823

关键词

multiplex PCR; bacteria; duck; pathogen

资金

  1. Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine and Inspection Agency (QIA) [Z-AD21-2011-12-02]
  2. Technology Development Program for Bio-industry
  3. Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
  4. Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ907012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infections with Pasteurella multocida, Salmonella enterica, Riemerella anatipestifer, and Escherichia coli result in high morbidity and mortality, which cause significant economic loss in the poultry industry. It can be difficult to distinguish these pathogens based on clinical signs because these pathogens can cause similar clinical signs and coinfections can occur. Thus, rapid and sensitive detection of these 4 major bacterial pathogens are important in ducks. The aim of this study was to develop a multiplex PCR (mPCR) assay for simultaneously detecting and identifying these 4 pathogenic bacteria in a single tube reaction. The target genes used were KMT1 of P. multocida, the invasion protein gene of S. enterica, 16S rDNA of R. anatipestifer, and the alkaline phosphatase gene of E. coli. The detection limit of the assay for all bacterial DNA was 10 pg. The mPCR did not produce any nonspecific amplification products when tested against other related pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Clostridium perfringens, Mycoplasma gallinarum, Mycoplasma synoviae, and Mycoplasma gallisepticum, which can also infect ducks. We applied mPCR to field samples, and the results were the same as the single PCR results. These results suggest that mPCR for the 4 bacteria is a useful and rapid technique to apply to field samples.

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

4.7
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