↓ Skip to main content

Comparison among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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 among the Quantification of Bacterial Pathogens by qPCR, dPCR, and Cultural Methods
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Ricchi, Cristina Bertasio, Maria B. Boniotti, Nadia Vicari, Simone Russo, Michela Tilola, Marco A. Bellotti, Barbara Bertasi

Abstract

The demand for rapid methods for the quantification of pathogens is increasing. Among these methods, those based on nucleic acids amplification (quantitative PCRs) are the most widespread worldwide. Together with the qPCR, a new approach named digital PCR (dPCR), has rapidly gained importance. The aim of our study was to compare the results obtained using two different dPCR systems and one qPCR in the quantification of three different bacterial pathogens: Listeria monocytogenes, Francisella tularensis, and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. For this purpose, three pre-existing qPCRs were used, while the same primers and probes, as well as PCR conditions, were transferred to two different dPCR systems: the QX200 (Bio-Rad) and the Quant Studio 3D (Applied Biosystems). The limits of detection and limits of quantification for all pathogens, and all PCR approaches applied, were determined using genomic pure DNAs. The quantification of unknown decimal suspensions of the three bacteria obtained by the three different PCR approaches was compared through the Linear Regression and Bland and Altman analyses. Our results suggest that, both dPCRs are able to quantify the same amount of bacteria, while the comparison among dPCRs and qPCRs, showed both over and under-estimation of the bacteria present in the unknown suspensions. Our results showed qPCR over-estimated the amount of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis and F. tularensis cells. On the contrary, qPCR, compared to QX200 dPCR, under-estimated the amount of L. monocytogenes cells. However, the maximum difference among PCRs approaches was <0.5 Log10, while cultural methods underestimated the number of bacteria by one to two Log10 for Francisella tularensis and Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. On the other hand, cultural and PCRs methods quantified the same amount of bacteria for L. monocytogenes, suggesting for this last pathogen, PCRs approaches can be considered as a valid alternative to the cultural ones.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 15%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Other 13 8%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 48 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 18%
Engineering 7 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 3%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 59 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,641
of 25,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,126
of 315,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#459
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.