Subramani Natarajan, Diana Bucur, Steven Kildea, Fiona Doohan
{"title":"用于定量燕麦中产生毛霉烯的镰刀菌种类的数字PCR分析,包括长叶镰刀菌,F. poae和孢子毛霉。","authors":"Subramani Natarajan, Diana Bucur, Steven Kildea, Fiona Doohan","doi":"10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><i>Fusarium</i> fungi cause Fusarium head blight (FHB) in oats, reducing yield and contaminating grains with harmful trichothecene mycotoxins. FHB symptoms in oats are often not visually distinct, necessitating alternative detection methods. We developed digital PCR (dPCR) assays as the most accurate DNA-based method to detect trichothecene-producing <i>Fusarium</i> species commonly found in oats. Building on existing quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays, we developed dPCR assays targeting all trichothecene producers (the <i>Tri5</i> gene), or specific to <i>F. langsethiae</i> (<i>Fl</i>), <i>F. poae</i> (<i>Fp</i>), and <i>F. sporotrichioides</i> (<i>Fs</i>). All targeted single copy genes, except <i>F. poae</i> which targeted rDNA which is a variable and multi-copy target (and hence not as reliable as the other assays for quantification). Optimized dPCR assays showed excellent linearity (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = 0.99) and greater resilience than qPCR to varying oat DNA concentrations. Overall, when comparing assay sensitivity using both fungal and field oat DNA extracts, dPCR assays were superior to qPCR for <i>Tri5</i>, <i>Fl</i>, and <i>Fs</i>, but the converse was true for <i>Fp</i>. Performance comparisons using field samples showed moderate to perfect agreement between qPCR and dPCR for <i>Tri5</i> and <i>Fl</i> (<i>κ</i> = 0.5 and 0.86) and poor agreement for <i>Fp</i> (<i>κ</i> = 0.00). Strong correlations were observed between the methods for <i>Tri5</i>, <i>Fl</i>, and <i>Fp</i> (<i>r</i> = 0.88–0.97), but unlike dPCR, qPCR did not detect <i>Fs</i> in any of the field samples. We conclude that the dPCR assays for <i>Tri5</i>, <i>Fl</i>, and <i>Fs</i> offer a reliable method for quantification while that for <i>Fp</i> is reliable for fungal detection but less reliable for quantification of the pathogen in field samples.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":462,"journal":{"name":"Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry","volume":"417 13","pages":"2957 - 2969"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital PCR assays for quantifying trichothecene-producing Fusarium species, including Fusarium langsethiae, F. poae, and F. sporotrichioides, in oats\",\"authors\":\"Subramani Natarajan, Diana Bucur, Steven Kildea, Fiona Doohan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><i>Fusarium</i> fungi cause Fusarium head blight (FHB) in oats, reducing yield and contaminating grains with harmful trichothecene mycotoxins. FHB symptoms in oats are often not visually distinct, necessitating alternative detection methods. We developed digital PCR (dPCR) assays as the most accurate DNA-based method to detect trichothecene-producing <i>Fusarium</i> species commonly found in oats. Building on existing quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays, we developed dPCR assays targeting all trichothecene producers (the <i>Tri5</i> gene), or specific to <i>F. langsethiae</i> (<i>Fl</i>), <i>F. poae</i> (<i>Fp</i>), and <i>F. sporotrichioides</i> (<i>Fs</i>). All targeted single copy genes, except <i>F. poae</i> which targeted rDNA which is a variable and multi-copy target (and hence not as reliable as the other assays for quantification). Optimized dPCR assays showed excellent linearity (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = 0.99) and greater resilience than qPCR to varying oat DNA concentrations. Overall, when comparing assay sensitivity using both fungal and field oat DNA extracts, dPCR assays were superior to qPCR for <i>Tri5</i>, <i>Fl</i>, and <i>Fs</i>, but the converse was true for <i>Fp</i>. Performance comparisons using field samples showed moderate to perfect agreement between qPCR and dPCR for <i>Tri5</i> and <i>Fl</i> (<i>κ</i> = 0.5 and 0.86) and poor agreement for <i>Fp</i> (<i>κ</i> = 0.00). Strong correlations were observed between the methods for <i>Tri5</i>, <i>Fl</i>, and <i>Fp</i> (<i>r</i> = 0.88–0.97), but unlike dPCR, qPCR did not detect <i>Fs</i> in any of the field samples. We conclude that the dPCR assays for <i>Tri5</i>, <i>Fl</i>, and <i>Fs</i> offer a reliable method for quantification while that for <i>Fp</i> is reliable for fungal detection but less reliable for quantification of the pathogen in field samples.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"417 13\",\"pages\":\"2957 - 2969\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Digital PCR assays for quantifying trichothecene-producing Fusarium species, including Fusarium langsethiae, F. poae, and F. sporotrichioides, in oats
Fusarium fungi cause Fusarium head blight (FHB) in oats, reducing yield and contaminating grains with harmful trichothecene mycotoxins. FHB symptoms in oats are often not visually distinct, necessitating alternative detection methods. We developed digital PCR (dPCR) assays as the most accurate DNA-based method to detect trichothecene-producing Fusarium species commonly found in oats. Building on existing quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays, we developed dPCR assays targeting all trichothecene producers (the Tri5 gene), or specific to F. langsethiae (Fl), F. poae (Fp), and F. sporotrichioides (Fs). All targeted single copy genes, except F. poae which targeted rDNA which is a variable and multi-copy target (and hence not as reliable as the other assays for quantification). Optimized dPCR assays showed excellent linearity (R2 = 0.99) and greater resilience than qPCR to varying oat DNA concentrations. Overall, when comparing assay sensitivity using both fungal and field oat DNA extracts, dPCR assays were superior to qPCR for Tri5, Fl, and Fs, but the converse was true for Fp. Performance comparisons using field samples showed moderate to perfect agreement between qPCR and dPCR for Tri5 and Fl (κ = 0.5 and 0.86) and poor agreement for Fp (κ = 0.00). Strong correlations were observed between the methods for Tri5, Fl, and Fp (r = 0.88–0.97), but unlike dPCR, qPCR did not detect Fs in any of the field samples. We conclude that the dPCR assays for Tri5, Fl, and Fs offer a reliable method for quantification while that for Fp is reliable for fungal detection but less reliable for quantification of the pathogen in field samples.
期刊介绍:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry’s mission is the rapid publication of excellent and high-impact research articles on fundamental and applied topics of analytical and bioanalytical measurement science. Its scope is broad, and ranges from novel measurement platforms and their characterization to multidisciplinary approaches that effectively address important scientific problems. The Editors encourage submissions presenting innovative analytical research in concept, instrumentation, methods, and/or applications, including: mass spectrometry, spectroscopy, and electroanalysis; advanced separations; analytical strategies in “-omics” and imaging, bioanalysis, and sampling; miniaturized devices, medical diagnostics, sensors; analytical characterization of nano- and biomaterials; chemometrics and advanced data analysis.