MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2495590690 · doi:10.1128/aem.00077-16

Evaluation of Various Campylobacter-Specific Quantitative PCR (qPCR) Assays for Detection and Enumeration of Campylobacteraceae in Irrigation Water and Wastewater via a Miniaturized Most-Probable-Number–qPCR Assay

2016· article· en· W2495590690 on OpenAlexaffabout
Graham Banting, Shannon L. Braithwaite, Candis Scott, Jinyong Kim, Byeonghwa Jeon, Nicholas J. Ashbolt, Norma J. Ruecker, Lisa Tymensen, Jollin Charest, Katarina Pintar, Sylvia Checkley, Norman F. Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCampylobacterCampylobacter jejuniBiologyMicrobiologyArcobacterBacteriaPrimer (cosmetics)EnumerationReal-time polymerase chain reactionSewagePolymerase chain reactionVeterinary medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Campylobacter spp. are the leading cause of bacterial gastroenteritis worldwide, and water is increasingly seen as a risk factor in transmission. Here we describe a most-probable-number (MPN)-quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay in which water samples are centrifuged and aliquoted into microtiter plates and the bacteria are enumerated by qPCR. We observed that commonly used Campylobacter molecular assays produced vastly different detection rates. In irrigation water samples, detection rates varied depending upon the PCR assay and culture method used, as follows: 0% by the de Boer Lv1-16S qPCR assay, 2.5% by the Van Dyke 16S and Jensen glyA qPCR assays, and 75% by the Linton 16S endpoint PCR when cultured at 37°C. Primer/probe specificity was the major confounder, with Arcobacter spp. routinely yielding false-positive results. The primers and PCR conditions described by Van Dyke et al. (M. I. Van Dyke, V. K. Morton, N. L. McLellan, and P. M. Huck, J Appl Microbiol 109:1053-1066, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04730.x) proved to be the most sensitive and specific for Campylobacter detection in water. Campylobacter occurrence in irrigation water was found to be very low (<2 MPN/300 ml) when this Campylobacter-specific qPCR was used, with the most commonly detected species being C. jejuni, C. coli, and C. lari Campylobacters in raw sewage were present at ∼10(2)/100 ml, with incubation at 42°C required for reducing microbial growth competition from arcobacters. Overall, when Campylobacter prevalence and/or concentration in water is reported using molecular methods, considerable validation is recommended when adapting methods largely developed for clinical applications. Furthermore, combining MPN methods with molecular biology-based detection algorithms allows for the detection and quantification of Campylobacter spp. in environmental samples and is potentially suited to quantitative microbial risk assessment for improved public health disease prevention related to food and water exposures. IMPORTANCE: The results of this study demonstrate the importance of assay validation upon data interpretation of environmental monitoring for Campylobacter when using molecular biology-based assays. Previous studies describing Campylobacter prevalence in Canada utilized primers that we have determined to be nonspecific due to their cross-amplification of Arcobacter spp. As such, Campylobacter prevalence may have been vastly overestimated in other studies. Additionally, the development of a quantitative assay described in this study will allow accurate determination of Campylobacter concentrations in environmental water samples, allowing more informed decisions to be made about water usage based on quantitative microbial risk assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental MicrobiologySame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207