Challenges Using Droplet Digital PCR for Environmental Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) is a method used to detect and quantify nucleic acids even when present in exceptionally low numbers. While it has proven to be valuable for clinical studies, it has failed to be widely adopted for environmental studies but despite some limitations, ddPCR may represent a better option than classical qPCR for environmental samples. Due to the complexity of the chemical and biological composition of environmental samples, protocols tailored to clinical studies are not appropriate, and results are difficult to interpret. We used environmental DNA samples originating from field studies to determine a protocol for environmental samples. Samples included field soils which had been inoculated with the soil fungus Rhizophagus irregularis (environmental positive control), field soils that had not been inoculated and the targeted fungus was not naturally present (environmental negative control), and root samples from both field categories. To control for the effect of soil inhibitors, we also included DNA samples of an organismal control extracted from pure fungal spores (organismal positive control). Finally, we included a no-template control consisting only of the PCR reaction reagents and nuclease free water instead of template DNA. Using original data, we examined which factors contribute to poor resolution in root and soil samples and propose best practices to ensure accuracy and repeatability. Furthermore, we evaluated manual and automatic threshold determination methods and we propose a novel protocol based on multiple controls that is more appropriate for environmental samples.
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 | 0.043 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".