4.6 Article

Correlation between Quantitative PCR and Culture-Based Methods for Measuring Enterococcus spp. over Various Temporal Scales at Three California Marine Beaches

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 78, 期 4, 页码 1237-1242

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.07136-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Science
  2. U.S. EPA Office of Water
  3. State of California Water Resources Control Board
  4. City of Dana Point

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have examined how fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) measurements compare between quantitative PCR (qPCR) and the culture methods it is intended to replace. Here, we extend those studies by examining the stability of that relationship within a beach, as affected by time of day and seasonal variations in source. Enterococcus spp. were quantified at three southern California beaches in the morning and afternoon using two qPCR assays, membrane filtration, and defined-substrate testing. While qPCR and culture-based measurements were consistently and significantly correlated, strength of the correlation varied both among and within beaches. Correlations were higher in the morning (0.45 < p < 0.74 [P < 0.002]) than in the afternoon (0.18 < p < 0.45 [P < 0.021]) and higher when the fecal contamination was concentrated (0.38 < p < 0.83 [P < 0.001]) than when it was diffuse (0.19 < p < 0.34 [P < 0.003]). The ratios of culture-based and qPCR results (CFU or most probable number WPM per calibrator cell equivalents [CCE]) also varied spatially and temporally. Ratios ranged between 0.04 and 0.85 CFU or MPN per CCE and were lowest at the beach affected by diffuse pollution. Patterns in the ratios over the course of the day were dissimilar across beaches, increasing with time at one beach and decreasing at another. The spatial and temporal variability we observed indicate that the empirical relationship between culture-based and qPCR results is not universal, even within a beach.

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