4.3 Article

Comparative analysis of detection limits and specificity of molecular diagnostic markers for three pathogens (Microsporidia, Nosema spp.) in the key pollinators Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris

期刊

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 110, 期 4, 页码 1403-1410

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2640-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [FKZ: 0315126]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global pollinator decline has recently been discussed in the context of honey and bumble bee infections from various pathogens including viruses, bacteria, microsporidia and mites. The microsporidian pathogens Nosema apis, Nosema ceranae and Nosema bombi may in fact be major candidates contributing to this decline. Different molecular and non-molecular detection methods have been developed; however, a comparison, especially of the highly sensitive PCR based methods, is currently lacking. Here, we present the first comparative quantitative real-time PCR study of nine Nosema spp. primers within the framework of primer specificity and sensitivity. With the help of dilution series of defined numbers of spores, we reveal six primer pairs amplifying N. apis, six for N. bombi and four for N. ceranae. All appropriate primer pairs detected an amount of at least 10(4) spores, the majority of which were even as sensitive to detect such low amounts as 10(3) to ten spores. Species specificity of primers was observed for N. apis and N. bombi, but not for N. ceranae. Additionally, we did not find any significant correlation for the amplified fragments with PCR efficiency or the limit of detection. We discuss our findings on the background of false positive and negative results using quantitative realtime PCR. On the basis of these results, future research might be based on appropriate primer selection depending on the experimental needs. Primers may be selected on the basis of specificity or sensitivity. Pathogen species and load may be determined with higher precision enhancing all kinds of diagnostic studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据