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

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: , and subsp. . 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 subsp. and cells. On the contrary, qPCR, compared to QX200 dPCR, under-estimated the amount of cells. However, the maximum difference among PCRs approaches was <0.5 Log, while cultural methods underestimated the number of bacteria by one to two Log for and subsp. . On the other hand, cultural and PCRs methods quantified the same amount of bacteria for , suggesting for this last pathogen, PCRs approaches can be considered as a valid alternative to the cultural ones.