任红宇, 田桢干, 周海健, 关红, 秦天, 邵祝军. 四种检测方法用于上海市口岸管道水军团菌存在状况调查的研究[J]. 疾病监测, 2014, 29(6): 449-453. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.201.06.009
引用本文: 任红宇, 田桢干, 周海健, 关红, 秦天, 邵祝军. 四种检测方法用于上海市口岸管道水军团菌存在状况调查的研究[J]. 疾病监测, 2014, 29(6): 449-453. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.201.06.009
REN Hong-yu, TIAN Zhen-gan, ZHOU Hai-jian, GUAN Hong, QIN Tian, SHAO Zhu-jun. Comparison of four methods to detect Legionella in pipe water samples collected from Shanghai port[J]. Disease Surveillance, 2014, 29(6): 449-453. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.201.06.009
Citation: REN Hong-yu, TIAN Zhen-gan, ZHOU Hai-jian, GUAN Hong, QIN Tian, SHAO Zhu-jun. Comparison of four methods to detect Legionella in pipe water samples collected from Shanghai port[J]. Disease Surveillance, 2014, 29(6): 449-453. DOI: 10.3784/j.issn.1003-9961.201.06.009

四种检测方法用于上海市口岸管道水军团菌存在状况调查的研究

Comparison of four methods to detect Legionella in pipe water samples collected from Shanghai port

  • 摘要: 目的 比较传统的平板培养法、普通聚合酶链反应(polymerase chain reaction,PCR)、实时荧光定量PCR(real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR, real-time PCR)和荧光染料叠氮溴化乙锭(ethidium monoazide,EMA)结合荧光定量PCR的方法(EMA-荧光定量PCR)对管道水中军团菌的检测效果。 方法 于2010年对上海市2个口岸管道水进行采样,共采集132份。分别采用传统的平板培养法、普通PCR、荧光定量PCR和EMA-荧光定量PCR对水样中军团菌进行定性和/或定量分析。 结果 对132份管道水标本进行军团菌定性检测,平板培养法、普通PCR、荧光定量PCR和EMA-荧光定量PCR检出军团菌污染率分别为18.9%、20.5%、24.2%和24.2%。3种定量方法(平板培养法、荧光定量PCR和EMA-荧光定量PCR)对阳性标本中军团菌定量数值分别为50~1320菌落形成单位/升(cfu/L)、 20~13 085基因单位/升(GU/L)和10~4480 GU/L。对于132份水样,3种方法对军团菌含量分析的定量数值大小差异有统计学意义(2=193.6, P0.01),其中荧光定量PCR的定量数值最高,EMA-荧光定量PCR的数值次之,平板培养的数值最低。 结论 上海市口岸管道水中军团菌污染率和含菌量高。荧光定量PCR和EMA-荧光定量PCR方法检测管道水中军团菌的灵敏度优于传统的培养方法, EMA-荧光定量PCR方法适合用于环境水体中军团菌活菌监测。

     

    Abstract: Objective To evaluate the sensitivities of 4 methods to detect Legionella in pipe water samples. Methods A total of 132 pipe water samples were collected from Shanghai port in 2010. Traditional culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR (real-time PCR) and Ethidium monoazide-real-time PCR (EMA-real-time PCR) were conducted simultaneously for qualitative and quantitative analysis of Legionella in pipe water samples. Results The positive rate of Legionella was 18.9% for traditional culture, 20.5% for PCR, 24.2% for real-time PCR and 24.2% for EMA-real-time PCR, respectively. The amount of Legionella in each positive samples were 50-1320 CFU/L, 20-13 085 GU/L and 10-4480 GU/L by traditional culture, real-time PCR and EMA-real-time PCR, respectively. The mean Legionella concentration of 32 positive pipe water samples detected by traditional culture, real-time PCR, and EMA-real-time PCR were 415.2 CFU/L, 2036.6GU/L and 629.9GU/L, respectively. Significant differences were found in Legionella concentration detected by different methods (2=193.6, P0.01), the concentration of Legionella detected by real-time PCR was highest and that by traditional culture was lowest. Conclusion Real-time PCR and EMA-real-time PCR have higher sensitivities than traditional culture. EMA-real-time PCR can be used as a routine surveillance tool to detect Legionella in pipe water.

     

/

返回文章
返回