Griffin Dale W, Lisle John T, Feldhake David, Silvestri Erin E
St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 600 4th Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33772, USA.
Pegasus Technical Services, Inc., 46 East Hollister St., Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA.
Geosciences (Basel). 2019;10(1):5. doi: 10.3390/geosciences10010005.
A liquid culture enrichment-polymerase chain reaction (E-PCR) assay was investigated as a potential tool to overcome inhibition by chemical component, debris, and background biological impurities in soil that were affecting detection assay performance for soil samples containing subsp. (a surrogate for ). To evaluate this assay, 9 g of matched sets of three different soil types (loamy sand [sand], sandy loam [loam] and clay) was spiked with 0, ~4.5, 45, 225, 675 and 1350 endospores. One matched set was evaluated using a previously published endospore concentration and colony-forming unit spreadplate (CFU-S) assay and the other matched set was evaluated using an E-PCR assay to investigate differences in limits of detection between the two assays. Data illustrated that detection using the CFU-S assay at the 45-endospore spike level started to become sporadic whereas the E-PCR assay produced repeatable detection at the ~4.5-endospore spike concentration. The E-PCR produced an ~2-log increase in sensitivity and required slightly less time to complete than the CFU-S assay. This study also investigated differences in recovery among pure and blended sand and clay soils and found potential activation of in predominately clay-based soils.
研究了一种液体培养富集聚合酶链反应(E-PCR)检测方法,作为一种潜在工具,以克服土壤中化学成分、碎片和背景生物杂质的抑制作用,这些因素影响了对含有亚种(的替代物)的土壤样品的检测分析性能。为了评估该检测方法,向9克三种不同土壤类型(壤质砂土[砂土]、砂壤土[壤土]和黏土)的匹配组中分别加入0、约4.5、45、225、675和1350个芽孢。一组匹配样品使用先前发表的芽孢浓度和菌落形成单位平板计数(CFU-S)检测方法进行评估,另一组匹配样品使用E-PCR检测方法进行评估,以研究两种检测方法在检测限方面的差异。数据表明,在45个芽孢添加水平下,使用CFU-S检测方法的检测开始变得不连续,而E-PCR检测方法在约4.5个芽孢添加浓度下产生了可重复的检测结果。E-PCR检测方法的灵敏度提高了约2个对数,并且比CFU-S检测方法完成所需的时间略少。本研究还调查了纯砂土和黏土以及混合砂土和黏土之间回收率的差异,并发现了在以黏土为主的土壤中潜在的激活情况。