4.7 Article

Sensitive quantitative detection of Ralstonia solanacearum in soil by the most probable number-polymerase chain reaction (MPN-PCR) method

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 98, 期 9, 页码 4169-4177

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-014-5604-z

关键词

Ralstonia solanacearum; Soil bacteria detection; Bio-PCR; MPN-PCR

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan [25062C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We developed a sensitive quantitative assay for detecting Ralstonia solanacearum in soil by most probable number (MPN) analysis based on bio-PCR results. For development of the detection method, we optimized an elution buffer containing 5 g/L skim milk for extracting bacteria from soil and reducing contamination of polymerase inhibitors in soil extracts. Because R. solanacearum can grow in water without any added nutrients, we used a cultivation buffer in the culture step of the bio-PCR that contained only the buffer and antibiotics to suppress the growth of other soil microorganisms. To quantify the bacterial population in soil, the elution buffer was added to 10 g soil on a dry weight basis so that the combined weight of buffer, soil, and soil-water was 50 g; 5 mL of soil extract was assumed to originate from 1 g of soil. The soil extract was divided into triplicate aliquots each of 5 mL and 500, 50, and 5 mu L. Each aliquot was diluted with the cultivation buffer and incubated at 35 A degrees C for about 24 h. After incubation, 5 mu L of culture was directly used for nested PCR. The number of aliquots showing positive results was collectively checked against the MPN table. The method could quantify bacterial populations in soil down to 3 cfu/10 g dried soil and was successfully applied to several types of soil. We applied the method for the quantitative detection of R. solanacearum in horticultural soils, which could quantitatively detect small populations (9.3 cfu/g), but the semiselective media were not able to detect the bacteria.

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

4.7
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