↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of culture-based, vital stain and PMA-qPCR methods for the quantitative detection of viable hookworm ova

Overview of attention for article published in Water Science & Technology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of culture-based, vital stain and PMA-qPCR methods for the quantitative detection of viable hookworm ova
Published in
Water Science & Technology, March 2017
DOI 10.2166/wst.2017.142
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Gyawali, J. P. S. Sidhu, W. Ahmed, P. Jagals, S. Toze

Abstract

Accurate quantitative measurement of viable hookworm ova from environmental samples is the key to controlling hookworm re-infections in the endemic regions. In this study, the accuracy of three quantitative detection methods [culture-based, vital stain and propidium monoazide-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PMA-qPCR)] was evaluated by enumerating 1,000 ± 50 Ancylostoma caninum ova in the laboratory. The culture-based method was able to quantify an average of 397 ± 59 viable hookworm ova. Similarly, vital stain and PMA-qPCR methods quantified 644 ± 87 and 587 ± 91 viable ova, respectively. The numbers of viable ova estimated by the culture-based method were significantly (P < 0.05) lower than vital stain and PMA-qPCR methods. Therefore, both PMA-qPCR and vital stain methods appear to be suitable for the quantitative detection of viable hookworm ova. However, PMA-qPCR would be preferable over the vital stain method in scenarios where ova speciation is needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 64%
Student > Master 2 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 27%
Environmental Science 2 18%
Engineering 2 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 1 9%