Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Analyses of 34 water samples from 13 healthcare structures revealed how culture method and quantitative PCR (qPCR) often differ in the detection of Legionella pneumophila (Lp). With these considerations in hand, culture method, PCR and Ethidium Monoazide Bromide (EMA) qPCR have all been compared in order to detect Lp in water samples, identify a method able to speed up the procedures, detect the “viable but not cultivable” bacteria (VBNC) and exclude non-viable bacteria using a commercial kit for extraction and amplification as well as modification of the protocol.
Methods
Pure water samples artificially spiked with viable, non-viable and VBNC Lp ATCC 33152 were analyzed using a commercial kit for both qPCR and EMA-qPCR, while ISO 11731-2-2004 was used for culture method.
Results
Only 35% (12/34) of the environmental samples were positive in both culture and qPCR methods. With regard to EMA-qPCR, results showed the absence of dye toxicity on viable and VBNC strains and an incomplete effectiveness on the non-viable ones. In both viable and VBNC strains, a decrease of bacterial DNA amplification was recorded as a function of sample dilution but not of EMA concentration.
Conclusions
Discrepancies between culture method and EMA-qPCR were observed and may be due to different causes such as membrane-dye interactions, presence of interfering compounds and the sensitivity of the kit used.
Study significance and impact
In the presence of one or more suspected cases of nosocomial legionellosis, the application of a rapid molecular method able to identify only the viable and VBNC Lp would be useful in order to quickly identify the source of infection and to intervene with sanitation treatments. However, seeing that in our experience EMA pretreatment on the filter membrane did not come up with the expected results, it would be necessary to proceed with other experiments and/or different dyes.
Graphical Abstract
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
Reference30 articles.
1. Bianchi A, Pregliasco FE, Consonni M, Tesauro M (2016) Genotypic diversity of Legionella pneumophila in environmental and clinical strains assessed by Sequence-Based Typing, in association with retrospective clinical surveillance in Northern Italy. Ann Agric Environ Med 23(2):248–253. https://doi.org/10.5604/12321966.1203885
2. Boss R, Baumgartner A, Kroos S, Blattner M, Fretz R, Moor D (2018) Rapid detection of viable Legionella pneumophila in tap water by a qPCR and RT-PCR-based method. J Appl Microbiol 125(4):1216–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13932
3. Casini B, Baggiani A, Totaro M, Mansi A, Costa AL, Aquino F, Miccoli M, Valentini P, Bruschi F, Lopalco PL, Privitera G (2018) Detection of viable but non-culturable legionella in hospital water network following monochloramine disinfection. J Hosp Infect 98(1):46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2017.09.006
4. Chang B, Sugiyama K, Taguri T, Amemura-Maekawa J, Kura F, Watanabe H (2009) Specific detection of viable Legionella cells by combined use of photoactivated ethidium monoazide and PCR/real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(1):147–153. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00604-08
5. Chang B, Taguri T, Sugiyama K, Amemura-Maekawa J, Kura F, Watanabe H (2010) Comparison of ethidium monoazide and propidium monoazide for the selective detection of viable Legionella cells. Jpn J Infect Dis 63(2):119–123