Comparative analysis of classical and molecular microbiology methods for the detection of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in well water.

Andrée F Maheux, Vicky Huppé, Luc Bissonnette, Maurice Boissinot, Lynda Rodrigue, Ève Bérubé, Michel G Bergeron
{"title":"Comparative analysis of classical and molecular microbiology methods for the detection of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in well water.","authors":"Andrée F Maheux,&nbsp;Vicky Huppé,&nbsp;Luc Bissonnette,&nbsp;Maurice Boissinot,&nbsp;Lynda Rodrigue,&nbsp;Ève Bérubé,&nbsp;Michel G Bergeron","doi":"10.1039/c2em30565h","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The microbiological quality of 165 1 litre well water samples collected in the Québec City region was assessed by culture-based methods (mFC agar, Chromocult coliform agar, Colilert(®), MI agar, Chromocult enterococci, Enterolert™, and mEI agar) and by a molecular microbiology strategy, dubbed CRENAME-rtPCR, developed for the detection of Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., Enterococcus faecalis/faecium, and Bacillus atrophaeus subsp. globigii. In these drinking water samples, approved culture-based methods detected E. coli at rates varying from 1.8 to 3.6% and Enterococcus spp. at rates varying from 3.0 to 11.5%, while the molecular microbiology approach for E. coli was found to be as efficient, detecting contamination in 3.0% of samples. In contrast, CRENAME-rtPCR detected Enterococcus spp. in 27.9% of samples while the E. faecalis/faecium molecular assay did not uncover a single contaminated sample, thereby revealing a discrepancy in the coverage of waterborne enterococcal species detected by classical and molecular microbiology methods. The validation of the CRENAME-E. coli rtPCR test as a new tool to assess the quality of drinking water will require larger scale studies elaborated to demonstrate its equivalence to approved methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":50202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Monitoring","volume":"14 11","pages":"2983-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1039/c2em30565h","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1039/c2em30565h","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The microbiological quality of 165 1 litre well water samples collected in the Québec City region was assessed by culture-based methods (mFC agar, Chromocult coliform agar, Colilert(®), MI agar, Chromocult enterococci, Enterolert™, and mEI agar) and by a molecular microbiology strategy, dubbed CRENAME-rtPCR, developed for the detection of Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., Enterococcus faecalis/faecium, and Bacillus atrophaeus subsp. globigii. In these drinking water samples, approved culture-based methods detected E. coli at rates varying from 1.8 to 3.6% and Enterococcus spp. at rates varying from 3.0 to 11.5%, while the molecular microbiology approach for E. coli was found to be as efficient, detecting contamination in 3.0% of samples. In contrast, CRENAME-rtPCR detected Enterococcus spp. in 27.9% of samples while the E. faecalis/faecium molecular assay did not uncover a single contaminated sample, thereby revealing a discrepancy in the coverage of waterborne enterococcal species detected by classical and molecular microbiology methods. The validation of the CRENAME-E. coli rtPCR test as a new tool to assess the quality of drinking water will require larger scale studies elaborated to demonstrate its equivalence to approved methods.

经典与分子微生物法检测井水中大肠杆菌和肠球菌的比较分析。
采用基于培养的方法(mFC琼脂、嗜色大肠菌群琼脂、Colilert(®)、MI琼脂、嗜色肠球菌、Enterolert™和mEI琼脂)和用于检测大肠杆菌、肠球菌、粪肠球菌/粪肠球菌和萎缩芽孢杆菌亚种的分子微生物学策略creame - rtpcr,对采自曲姆塞克市地区的165个1升井水样品进行微生物学质量评估。globigii。在这些饮用水样品中,经批准的基于培养的方法对大肠杆菌的检出率从1.8到3.6%不等,对肠球菌的检出率从3.0到11.5%不等,而对大肠杆菌的分子微生物学方法也同样有效,检测到3.0%的样品污染。相比之下,cre_name - rtpcr在27.9%的样品中检测到肠球菌,而粪肠球菌/粪肠球菌分子检测没有发现单个污染样品,从而揭示了经典方法和分子微生物学方法检测到的水传播肠球菌种类的覆盖率存在差异。验证CRENAME-E。大肠杆菌rt - pcr检测作为评估饮用水质量的新工具将需要更大规模的研究,以证明其与已批准的方法的等效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Environmental Monitoring
Journal of Environmental Monitoring 环境科学-分析化学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2.3 months
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信