4.2 Article

Limit of detection of genomic DNA by conventional PCR for estimating the load of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli associated with bovine mastitis

期刊

FOLIA MICROBIOLOGICA
卷 60, 期 6, 页码 465-472

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12223-015-0384-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, under the Indo-Australia Biotechnology Fund Scheme [BT/IndoUS/04/06/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detection of mastitis-associated bacteria can be accomplished by culturing or by molecular techniques. On the other hand, rapid and inexpensive methods to enumerate bacterial load without culturing can be better achieved by molecular methods. Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli are the predominant bacterial pathogens associated with bovine mastitis. Here, we describe the application of conventional PCR for the limit of detection (LOD) of genomic DNA of S. aureus and E. coli based on single-copy genes. The selected genes were thermonuclease (nuc), aureolysin (aur), and staphopain A (scpA) for S. aureus and beta-D-glucuronidase A (uidA), cytochrome d oxidase (cyd), and rodA (a gene affecting cell shape and methicillin sensitivity) for E. coli. The LOD was 5.3, 15.9, and 143 pg for aur, nuc, and scpA genes, corresponding to S. aureus genomic copies of 1.75 x 10(3), 5.16 x 10(3), and 4.71 x 10(4), respectively. The LOD was 0.45, 12.3 and 109 pg for uidA, rodA and cyd genes, corresponding to E. coli genome copies of 8.91 x 10(1), 2.43 x 10(3), and 2.16 x 10(4), respectively. Application of uidA and aur PCRs to field strains revealed that as low as approximately 100 genome copies of E. coli and 1000-10,000 copies of S. aureus could be detected. This study is the first to report LOD of genomic DNA using conventional PCR for aur and scpA genes of S. aureus, and rodA and cyd genes of E. coli. The results should be useful for developing assays to assess bacterial load in milk and to determine the load that contributes to subclinical or clinical mastitis.

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

4.2
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