A Comparison between Droplet Digital and Quantitative PCR in the Analysis of Bacterial 16S Load in Lung Tissue Samples from Control and COPD GOLD 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low biomass in the bacterial lung tissue microbiome utilizes quantitative PCR (qPCR) 16S bacterial assays at their limit of detection. New technology like droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) could allow for higher sensitivity and accuracy of quantification. These attributes are needed if specific bacteria within the bacterial lung tissue microbiome are to be evaluated as potential contributors to diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesize that ddPCR is better at quantifying the total bacterial load in lung tissue versus qPCR. METHODS: Control (n = 16) and COPD GOLD 2 (n = 16) tissue samples were obtained from patients who underwent lung resection surgery, were cut on a cryotome, and sections were assigned for use in quantitative histology or for DNA extraction. qPCR and ddPCR were performed on these samples using primers spanning the V2 region on the 16S rRNA gene along with negative controls. Total 16S counts were compared between the two methods. Both methods were assessed for correlations with quantitative histology measurements of the tissue. RESULTS: There was no difference in the average total 16S counts (P>0.05) between the two methods. However, the negative controls contained significantly lower counts in the ddPCR (0.55 ± 0.28 16S/uL) than in the qPCR assay (1.00 ± 0.70 16S copies) (P <0.05). The coefficient of variation was significantly lower for the ddPCR assay (0.18 ± 0.14) versus the qPCR assay (0.62 ± 0.29) (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Overall the ddPCR 16S assay performed better by reducing the background noise in 16S of the negative controls compared with 16S qPCR assay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".