2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining the 95% limit of detection for waterborne pathogen analyses from primary concentration to qPCR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
42
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…36 As an alternative supporting analysis, the concentration of L. pneumophila was estimated at the theoretical 95 % detection limit of the Legiolert assay (3 most probable number (MPN) in the total volume of water assayed). 37 Because MAC was never detected while flushing showers in the St. Paul building, an upper limit was estimated based on the theoretical 95 % detection limit of the qPCR assay (i.e., 3 copies in the total volume of water analyzed by qPCR). 37 Exponential dose-response models were used for both Legionella health endpoints based on a guinea pig model reported by Armstrong and Haas 38 , which has been validated against human outbreak data 39 and with "uncertain parameter" values as reported in Hamilton et al 32 For MAC health endpoints, exponential dose-response models were used for pulmonary infection and cervical lymphadenitis (i.e., Tomioka model and Jorgensen 1 model, respectively), and an approximate beta-Poisson model for systemic infection (i.e., Yangco model).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…36 As an alternative supporting analysis, the concentration of L. pneumophila was estimated at the theoretical 95 % detection limit of the Legiolert assay (3 most probable number (MPN) in the total volume of water assayed). 37 Because MAC was never detected while flushing showers in the St. Paul building, an upper limit was estimated based on the theoretical 95 % detection limit of the qPCR assay (i.e., 3 copies in the total volume of water analyzed by qPCR). 37 Exponential dose-response models were used for both Legionella health endpoints based on a guinea pig model reported by Armstrong and Haas 38 , which has been validated against human outbreak data 39 and with "uncertain parameter" values as reported in Hamilton et al 32 For MAC health endpoints, exponential dose-response models were used for pulmonary infection and cervical lymphadenitis (i.e., Tomioka model and Jorgensen 1 model, respectively), and an approximate beta-Poisson model for systemic infection (i.e., Yangco model).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Focusing on DNA-dependent detection methods (e.g., PCR), let us assume that every copy, C, of the target DNA sequence in a sample has a small, fixed probability of causing a positive result in a reaction, φ. The probability of a positive test result can then be described by a "single-hit" model 82,83 :…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Utilizing serially diluted purified ISAV, a precise cut‐off Ct value (Ct LoD ) was identified where at least 95% of biological and technical replicates of a low concentration ISAV dilution could be detected by RT‐qPCR (Table ). A 95% LoD was chosen as this has been common practice in past qPCR studies (Bustin et al., ; Forootan et al., ; Nutz et al., ; Stokdyk, Firnstahl, Spencer, Burch, & Borchardt, ). A standard deviation calculated from the average Ct values of all biological replicates of this low‐titre dilution then enabled the calculation of another limit of detection, representing a significant shift in ISAV Ct values between time points (∆Ct LoD ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%