4.6 Article

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

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.860992

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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