title: Comparison of four polymerase chain reaction methods for the rapid detection of human fecal pollution in marine and inland waters.
abstract: We compared the effectiveness of three PCR protocols for the detection of Bifidobacterium adolescentis and one PCR protocol for detecting Bacteroidales as indicators of human fecal pollution in environmental samples. Quantitative PCR indicated that a higher concentration of B. adolescentis DNA was recovered from sewage samples on the 0.2 mum filters compared to the 0.45 mum filters, and there was no evidence of qPCR inhibitors in the DNA extracts. With the Matsuki method (1999), B. adolescentis was detected only in undiluted sewage samples. The King method (2007) performed well and detected B. adolescentis in all of the sewage dilutions (from undiluted to 10(-4)). In contrast, the Bonjoch approach (2004) was effective at detecting B. adolescentis at lower dilutions (10(-3)) of sewage samples and it gave false positive results with some (3/8) pig fecal samples. Human-specific Bacteroidales (HuBacs) were detected in the lower diluents of sewage samples but was positive in pig (6/8) and cattle fecal samples. PCR detection of B. adolescentis in marine samples from Puerto Rico and freshwater samples from Georgia indicated that the PCR method of King et al. (2007) and the modified Layton method for HuBac were in agreement in detecting human fecal pollution in most sites.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Georgia College and State University, Campus Box 81, Milledgeville, GA 31061-0490, USA.
authors.forename: Dave S
authors.initials: DS
authors.lastname: Bachoon
authors.forename: Cortney M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Christen P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Green
authors.forename: Ernesto
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Otero
references.citation: J Microbiol Methods. 2007 Jan;68(1):76-81
references.pmid: 16876892
references.citation: J Food Prot. 2006 Apr;69(4):871-7
references.pmid: 16629032
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jun;72(6):4214-24
references.pmid: 16751534
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 May;74(9):2882-93
references.pmid: 18344347
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 May;70(5):3171-5
references.pmid: 15128586
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Sep;75(17):5507-13
references.pmid: 19592537
references.citation: Water Res. 2008 Aug;42(14):4001-9
references.pmid: 18708238
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Sep;70(9):5695-7
references.pmid: 15345463
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2009 Oct;107(4):1178-85
references.pmid: 19486397
references.citation: Microbiol Rev. 1995 Mar;59(1):143-69
references.pmid: 7535888
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Feb;74(3):575-84
references.pmid: 17993557
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 22;104(21):9029-34
references.pmid: 17488814
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Oct;65(10):4506-12
references.pmid: 10508082
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Sep;72(9):5915-26
references.pmid: 16957211
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Apr;63(4):1268-73
references.pmid: 9097423
references.citation: Water Res. 2009 Nov;43(19):4980-8
references.pmid: 19783273
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Feb;61(2):788-92
references.pmid: 7574616
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 May;69(5):2651-6
references.pmid: 12732533
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;70(7):4165-9
references.pmid: 15240297