中空纤维超滤和注射器微滤作为水中细菌、病毒和动物DNA靶向综合检测的高效浓缩方法的比较评价

IF 4.3 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Yuki Takamatsu, Seiya Hanamoto, Keisuke Kuroda, Kenshi Sankoda, Shuta Matsuoka and Akihiko Hata*, 
{"title":"中空纤维超滤和注射器微滤作为水中细菌、病毒和动物DNA靶向综合检测的高效浓缩方法的比较评价","authors":"Yuki Takamatsu,&nbsp;Seiya Hanamoto,&nbsp;Keisuke Kuroda,&nbsp;Kenshi Sankoda,&nbsp;Shuta Matsuoka and Akihiko Hata*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acsestwater.5c00385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Environmental waters contain diverse microbial and macrobial DNA, necessitating methods capable of efficiently concentrating various organisms, cells, and free DNA. This study compared hollow fiber ultrafiltration (HFUF) and syringe microfiltration (MF) for recovering microbial and macrobial cells and DNA from surface water and stormwater runoff. Performance was assessed by quantifying a spiked virus (phiX174), naturally occurring <i>E. coli</i>, bacterial 16S rRNA genes, and crAssphage, along with metabarcoding of mitochondrial DNA and full-length 16S rRNA genes. The syringe MF method showed higher recovery and quantitative accuracy for bacterial and viral targets but suffered from membrane clogging, reducing DNA extraction efficiency. HFUF had higher sensitivity for low-abundance targets, particularly <i>E. coli</i>, due to its greater concentration factor. However, it was more prone to PCR inhibition, especially for long-fragment targets. Metabarcoding demonstrated that both methods captured microbial and macrobial community composition, although HFUF detected more fish DNA and a slightly greater number of bacterial genera. Overall, syringe MF is more suitable for accurate quantification, while HFUF is better for detecting low-abundance and small targets. The choice of method should be based on study objectives, target organisms, and trade-offs among recovery efficiency, DNA extraction, and PCR performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":93847,"journal":{"name":"ACS ES&T water","volume":"5 9","pages":"5265–5274"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Hollow-Fiber Ultrafiltration and Syringe Microfiltration As Efficient Concentration Methods for Targeted and Comprehensive Detection of Bacterial, Viral, and Animal DNA in Water\",\"authors\":\"Yuki Takamatsu,&nbsp;Seiya Hanamoto,&nbsp;Keisuke Kuroda,&nbsp;Kenshi Sankoda,&nbsp;Shuta Matsuoka and Akihiko Hata*,&nbsp;\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acsestwater.5c00385\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >Environmental waters contain diverse microbial and macrobial DNA, necessitating methods capable of efficiently concentrating various organisms, cells, and free DNA. This study compared hollow fiber ultrafiltration (HFUF) and syringe microfiltration (MF) for recovering microbial and macrobial cells and DNA from surface water and stormwater runoff. Performance was assessed by quantifying a spiked virus (phiX174), naturally occurring <i>E. coli</i>, bacterial 16S rRNA genes, and crAssphage, along with metabarcoding of mitochondrial DNA and full-length 16S rRNA genes. The syringe MF method showed higher recovery and quantitative accuracy for bacterial and viral targets but suffered from membrane clogging, reducing DNA extraction efficiency. HFUF had higher sensitivity for low-abundance targets, particularly <i>E. coli</i>, due to its greater concentration factor. However, it was more prone to PCR inhibition, especially for long-fragment targets. Metabarcoding demonstrated that both methods captured microbial and macrobial community composition, although HFUF detected more fish DNA and a slightly greater number of bacterial genera. Overall, syringe MF is more suitable for accurate quantification, while HFUF is better for detecting low-abundance and small targets. The choice of method should be based on study objectives, target organisms, and trade-offs among recovery efficiency, DNA extraction, and PCR performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS ES&T water\",\"volume\":\"5 9\",\"pages\":\"5265–5274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS ES&T water\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.5c00385\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS ES&T water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.5c00385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境水含有多种微生物和微生物DNA,需要能够有效地浓缩各种生物体、细胞和游离DNA的方法。本研究比较了中空纤维超滤(HFUF)和注射器微滤(MF)从地表水和雨水径流中回收微生物和微生物细胞和DNA的效果。通过定量刺突病毒(phiX174)、天然存在的大肠杆菌、细菌16S rRNA基因和噬菌体,以及线粒体DNA和全长16S rRNA基因的元条形码来评估性能。注射器MF法对细菌和病毒目标具有较高的回收率和定量准确性,但存在膜堵塞,降低了DNA提取效率。由于HFUF具有较高的浓度因子,对低丰度靶标,特别是大肠杆菌具有较高的敏感性。然而,它更容易被PCR抑制,特别是对于长片段靶点。元条形码表明,尽管HFUF检测到更多的鱼类DNA和略多的细菌属,但两种方法都捕获了微生物和微生物群落组成。总的来说,注射器MF更适合于精确定量,而HFUF更适合于检测低丰度和小靶标。方法的选择应基于研究目标、靶生物,以及在回收率、DNA提取和PCR性能之间的权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative Evaluation of Hollow-Fiber Ultrafiltration and Syringe Microfiltration As Efficient Concentration Methods for Targeted and Comprehensive Detection of Bacterial, Viral, and Animal DNA in Water

Comparative Evaluation of Hollow-Fiber Ultrafiltration and Syringe Microfiltration As Efficient Concentration Methods for Targeted and Comprehensive Detection of Bacterial, Viral, and Animal DNA in Water

Environmental waters contain diverse microbial and macrobial DNA, necessitating methods capable of efficiently concentrating various organisms, cells, and free DNA. This study compared hollow fiber ultrafiltration (HFUF) and syringe microfiltration (MF) for recovering microbial and macrobial cells and DNA from surface water and stormwater runoff. Performance was assessed by quantifying a spiked virus (phiX174), naturally occurring E. coli, bacterial 16S rRNA genes, and crAssphage, along with metabarcoding of mitochondrial DNA and full-length 16S rRNA genes. The syringe MF method showed higher recovery and quantitative accuracy for bacterial and viral targets but suffered from membrane clogging, reducing DNA extraction efficiency. HFUF had higher sensitivity for low-abundance targets, particularly E. coli, due to its greater concentration factor. However, it was more prone to PCR inhibition, especially for long-fragment targets. Metabarcoding demonstrated that both methods captured microbial and macrobial community composition, although HFUF detected more fish DNA and a slightly greater number of bacterial genera. Overall, syringe MF is more suitable for accurate quantification, while HFUF is better for detecting low-abundance and small targets. The choice of method should be based on study objectives, target organisms, and trade-offs among recovery efficiency, DNA extraction, and PCR performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信