Open Access

FungiQuant: A broad-coverage fungal quantitative real-time PCR assay

  • Cindy M Liu1, 2, 6Email author,
  • Sergey Kachur1, 2, 6, 7,
  • Michael G Dwan1, 2,
  • Alison G Abraham3,
  • Maliha Aziz1,
  • Po-Ren Hsueh4,
  • Yu-Tsung Huang5,
  • Joseph D Busch2,
  • Louis J Lamit6,
  • Catherine A Gehring6,
  • Paul Keim1, 2, 6 and
  • Lance B Price1
BMC Microbiology201212:255

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-255

Received: 10 May 2012

Accepted: 24 October 2012

Published: 8 November 2012

Abstract

Background

Fungal load quantification is a critical component of fungal community analyses. Limitation of current approaches for quantifying the fungal component in the human microbiome suggests the need for new broad-coverage techniques.

Methods

We analyzed 2,085 18S rRNA gene sequences from the SILVA database for assay design. We generated and quantified plasmid standards using a qPCR-based approach. We evaluated assay coverage against 4,968 sequences and performed assay validation following the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines.

Results

We designed FungiQuant, a TaqMan® qPCR assay targeting a 351 bp region in the fungal 18S rRNA gene. Our in silico analysis showed that FungiQuant is a perfect sequence match to 90.0% of the 2,617 fungal species analyzed. We showed that FungiQuant’s is 100% sensitive and its amplification efficiencies ranged from 76.3% to 114.5%, with r 2 -values of >0.99 against the 69 fungal species tested. Additionally, FungiQuant inter- and intra-run coefficients of variance ranged from <10% and <20%, respectively. We further showed that FungiQuant has a limit of quantification 25 copies and a limit of detection at 5 copies. Lastly, by comparing results from human-only background DNA with low-level fungal DNA, we showed that amplification in two or three of a FungiQuant performed in triplicate is statistically significant for true positive fungal detection.

Conclusions

FungiQuant has comprehensive coverage against diverse fungi and is a robust quantification and detection tool for delineating between true fungal detection and non-target human DNA.

Background

Fungi are among the most diverse eukaryotic organisms on Earth, with nearly 10,000 named fungal species and an estimated 1.5 to 5 million species that are yet to be defined [1, 2]. Fungi are also recognized as an important element in human microbiome research, clinical medicine, and as emerging pathogens [38]. However, methodological challenges have limited scientists’ and clinicians’ ability to detect and measure fungal abundance.

Currently, fungal detection is performed through culturing [9], serological detection of antigens, such galactomannan in invasive aspergillosis [10, 11], and molecular test panels [12]. Yet, these methods lack broad-coverage and are not quantitative [4, 13]. Next-generation sequencing is an effective approach for detecting and characterizing fungi, but it is expensive, requires complex analyses, and is not quantitative [14, 15].

Measurements of fungal abundance are now typically performed using biochemical methods targeting ergosterol, chitin, and fatty acid profiles [1618], which often require extraction methods that exclude further molecular analyses and can lack coverage against major fungal lineages [19]. Alternative approaches such as microscopy [20] and quantitative culture [21, 22] are also time-consuming, operator-dependent, and lack broad-coverage.

To address these limitations, a quantitative molecular tool that is broad-coverage, sensitive, and specific is needed [23, 24]. Together with qualitative characterization of fungi, such a tool will provide a comprehensive view of the fungal microbiota. Additionally, this broad-coverage fungal quantification tool can be used independently to measure fungal abundance changes over time, in response to treatment, or among multiple study groups.

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) has been shown to be more sensitive than culture-based approaches against a wide range of fungal species [25]. Much progress has been made in developing qPCR assays that can detect diverse fungal species [2630], but we sought to develop a qPCR assay that would approach universal fungal coverage. In the current manuscript, we present our design of a broad-coverage qPCR assay—FungiQuant—for fungal detection and quantification targeting the fungal 18S rRNA gene. We performed both in silico analysis based on primer and probe sequence matches to reference fungal 18S rRNA gene sequences and laboratory validation following the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines [31]. Lastly, we established guidelines for quantification and detection analysis based results from triplicate reactions using FungiQuant.

Methods

Design of fungal 18S rRNA gene quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) assay

We downloaded fungal 18S rRNA gene sequences alignment scores and sequence quality scores of >90 and have a length of 1400 bp or longer from SILVA Release 93 (n = 2,085) [32]. We summarized the aligned sequences the occurrence of each allele at each nucleotide position. Alignment positions with a gap content of >97% were excluded.

We identified a highly conserved 500 bp region for qPCR assay design. In our assay design, we stipulated that: 1) primers can only have three or fewer degenerate bases and 2) the probe contains no degenerate bases. Using the allele occurrence analysis file, we incorporated key degenerate bases into each primer and designed a non-degenerate probe. The primer Tm was calculated using OligoCalc [33] and the probe Tm was calculated using the Primer Probe Test Tool from the Primer Express® Software for Real-Time PCR version 3.0 (Applied Biosystems by Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) (Table 1).
Table 1

FungiQuant primer and probe sequences

FungiQuant (351 bp)

Tm (°C)

S. cerevisiaeregion

FungiQuant-F

5-GGRAAACTCACCAGGTCCAG-3

60.5-62.5

1199-1218

FungiQuant-R

5-GSWCTATCCCCAKCACGA-3

56.3-58.4

1269-1283

FungiQuant-Prb

(6FAM) 5-TGGTGCATGGCCGTT-3 (MGBNFQ)

68.0

1532-1549

Computational analysis of assay specificity and coverage

A Specificity analysis. We assessed assay specificity using megablast against human and bacterial sequences from the Genbank nucleotide collection (nr/nt) [34].

B Collection of 18S rRNA gene sequence for in silico coverage analysis. From SILVA Release 108, we downloaded the sequences, sequence ID, and Genbank accession numbers of all fungal 18S rRNA gene sequences with sequence quality score of >90 and are 1,400 bp or longer [32]. We extracted the full Genbank taxonomy for each sequence, which we concatenated (e.g., at order-level, a taxonomic identification consists of phylum-subphylum-class-order). We replaced empty data fields in the concatenated taxonomy with “unknown”, when applicable.

C Overview of in silico assay coverage analysis. We performed the in silico coverage analysis using a stringent and a relaxed criterion, where the stringent criterion requires full perfect match of both primers and the relaxed criterion requires perfect match of the last eight nucleotides at the 3’ end of the primers. Both conditions require full perfect match of the probe sequence. For each condition, we determined the assay’s numerical and taxonomic coverage at the phylum, sub-phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species levels. Details for the in silico coverage analysis can be found in the Additional file 1: Methodological Details.

Quantification and normalization of FungiQuant plasmid standards

We utilized a qPCR-based approach to quantify and normalize the FungiQuant plasmid standards, a C. albicans 18S rRNA gene clone, to a Cp-value equivalent to 109 copies/μl. Details for FungiQuant plasmid normalization can be found in the Additional file 1: Methodological Details.

FungiQuant optimization and specificity check

After testing multiple primer and probe concentrations, the optimized conditions included 10 μl and 5 μl of reaction volumes using 1 μl of template, with the final reaction containing 1.8 μM of each forward and reverse primer, 225 nM the TaqMan® probe, 1% formamide, 1X Platinum® Quantitative PCR SuperMix-UDG w⁄ROX (Invitrogen Corp.) and molecular-grade water. We included an in-run standard curve (25 copies, 50 copies, and 102-107 copies in 10-fold serial dilutions) and no-template controls in each run, with all reactions performed in triplicates on the 7900HT Real Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems). We used the following PCR conditions: 3 min at 50°C for UNG treatment, 10 min at 95°C for Taq activation, 15 s at 95°C for denaturation and 1 min at 65°C for annealing and extension x 50 cycles. We determined the Ct-value for each reaction using a manual Ct threshold of 0.10 and automatic baseline in the Sequence Detection Systems v2.3 software (Applied Biosystems). Using the optimized assay condition, we tested FungiQuant against 0.5 ng, 1 ng, 5 ng, and 10 ng of human genomic DNA (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) mixed with the normalized plasmid standards in triplicate reactions.

FungiQuant laboratory evaluation using diverse fungal genomic DNA

To assess FungiQuant’s performance against diverse fungi, we evaluated the assay efficiency and correlation coefficients against a collection of fungal genomic DNA, details regarding the fungal DNA collection can be found in Additional file 1: Methodological Details.

Experimental design

For sensitivity and efficiency analysis, we tested each fungal genomic DNA in three 10-fold serial dilutions in triplicate reactions using the optimized 18S qPCR conditions as described above. Using the Ct-value results, we calculated FungiQuant’s reaction efficiency and correlation coefficient for each species tested.

Limit of detection (LOD) validation

Experimental design

To determine the LOD of FungiQuant for detecting low concentration fungal DNA, we analyzed no-template controls (i.e., molecular grade H2O), background control (i.e., 10 ng, 50ng, and 150ng human DNA), as well as three low concentration of fungal DNA: a) 1.8 copies, b) 5 copies, and c) 10 copies of fungal 18S rRNA gene. Each template was analyzed in 96 replicates in 10 μl and 5 μl reactions using conditions as described above.

Data Analysis

Experimental results using all templates were assessed for: a) the proportion of determined and undetermined values and b) the Ct-value distribution among those replicates with determined values. Using the specificity associated with the background controls, which provides the most likely source of contamination and signal noise, the probability of each triplicate results was calculated under the null hypothesis that the sample contained no positive target. The analysis was performed separately for each reaction volume using an alpha level of 0.05 to determine results inconsistent with the null. Analysis using the Ct-value from samples with positive amplification was also performed using a non-parametric median test to determine if 1.8 copies, 5 copies, or 10 copies templates could be differentiated from the no-template and background controls. The Ct-value data was further assessed to determine if the average Ct-value is an appropriate estimate of the true Ct-value in low concentration samples for reporting and analysis.

FungiQuant laboratory quantitative validation

Experimental design

We followed the Minimum Information for publication of Quantitative real-time PCR Experiments, or the MIQE guidelines, whenever applicable [31]. We performed additional tests to evaluate FungiQuant performance when background human DNA is present. We included seven template conditions: plasmid standards alone and plasmid standards with 0.5 ng, 1 ng, 5 ng, and 10 ng of human DNA per reaction in 10 μl reactions, as well as plasmid standards alone and plasmid standards with 1 ng human DNA in 5 μl reactions. For each condition assessed, we performed three qPCR runs to assess reproducibility. In each run, three replicate standard curves were tested across the 384-well plate to assess repeatability. Details for the data analysis can be found in Additional file 1: Methodological Details.

Fungi-to-human DNA threshold ratio calculations

We determined FungiQuant’s minimum threshold of fungi-to-human DNA ratio using an estimate of average human 18S rRNA gene copy number per genome as 400 copies [35]. We estimated the diploid human genome as 5,758 Mb [36] or the mass equivalent of 5,758Mb/(0.978x103 Mb/pg) = 5.887 pg per diploid human genome [37].

Results

FungiQuant assay design

We identified three highly conserved regions based on analysis results of a high-quality 18S rRNA gene multiple sequence alignments. Within these conserved regions, we designed two degenerate primers and a non-degenerate TaqMan® minor-groove binding probe (Table 1). We positioned the probe on the reverse strand, proximal to the forward primer to create favorable thermodynamic profile and maximize assay specificity (Additional file 1: Table S1).

in silicoanalysis of FungiQuant assay coverage using 18S rRNA gene sequences from 18 fungal subphyla

We performed in silico coverage analysis using a stringent and a relaxed criterion against 4,968 18S rRNA gene sequences, encompassing 18 fungal subphyla. Based on the stringent criterion, we showed that 15 of the 18 subphyla had perfect sequence matches to FungiQuant (Table 2). We found that most covered subphyla were substantially covered on the genus-level as well, typically with 90% or more of the genera being perfect sequence matches. Exceptions included Mucoromycotina (20/36; 55.56%), Kickxellomycotina (6/9; 66.67%), and Chytridiomycota (9/13; 69.23%). Microspordia and Entomophthoromycotina were the two subphyla without any perfect sequence matches to FungiQuant (Additional file 2: Figure S1). We found that 1,018 genera (91.4%) and 2,355 species (90.0%) had at least one perfect sequence match to FungiQuant (Table 2).
Table 2

Results from the in silico coverage analysis performed using two sequence matching conditions

 

Full length primer & probe (Stringent)

8-nt primer & full length probe (Relaxed)

Phylum

77.8%

88.9%

(7/9)

(8/9)

Sub-phylum

83.3%

94.4%

(15/18)

(17/18)

Class

92.3%

97.4%

(36/39)

(38/39)

Order

91.3%

96.9%

(116/127)

(123/127)

Family

91.9%

95.4%

(342/372)

(354/372)

Genus

91.4%

94.9%

(1018/1114)

(1057/1114)

Species

90.0%

94.2%

(2355/2617)

(2465/2617)

When we applied the relaxed criterion, we determined that FungiQuant covered Entomophthoromycotina (Figure 1). We also found that 1,057 genera (94.9%) and 2,465 species (94.2%) had at least one perfect sequence match to FungiQuant (Table 2). In addition, we determined that FungiQuant had excellent coverage for many clinically relevant genera such as Cryptococcus spp. (49/49; 100%), Fusarium spp. (7/7; 100%), Mucor spp. (7/7; 100%), Rhizopus spp. (15/15; 100%), and Candida spp. (108/119; 90.76%). Analysis also showed comprehensive coverage for common environmental genera such as Glomus spp. (24/25; 96.00%), Gigaspora spp. (5/5; 100%), Trichosporon spp. (31/31; 100%), and Rhodotorula spp. (22/22; 100%). Detailed results for the coverage analysis can be found in Additional file 3: Table S4, Additional file 4: Table S5.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-12-255/MediaObjects/12866_2012_Article_1878_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

FungiQuant in silico coverage analysis using the relaxed criterion against 993 genera and 9 phyla, demonstrating broad-coverage. On the 18S rRNA gene-based phylogeny, each analyzed fungal phylum is annotated with its genus-level FungiQuant coverage based on the relaxed criterion. This is presented as a numerator (i.e., the number of covered genus for the phylum), a denominator (i.e., the number of genera eligible for sequence matching for the phylum), and the percentage of coverage.

FungiQuant sensitivity against diverse fungal DNA

We tested the sensitivity of FungiQuant against 69 clinical and environmental species from seven subphyla in the laboratory. We showed that FungiQuant is 100% sensitive against these diverse species from Agaricomycotina (n = 22), Mucormycotina (n = 4), Pezizomycotina (n = 29), Pucciniomycotina (n=2), Saccharomycotina (n = 17), Taphrinomycotina (n = 1), and Ustilaginomycotina (n = 1) (Table 3). All of the fungal species tested were perfect sequence matches to FungiQuant, and based on results from three ten-fold dilutions, we found that the assay reaction efficiencies ranged from 76.29% to 114.45%., with r 2 -value of >0.99 (Table 3).
Table 3

FungiQuant sensitivity and reaction efficiency against diverse fungal species

Subphylum

Species

Reaction efficiency

r 2

Saccharomycotina

Debaryomyces hansenii

101.42%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Lodderomyces elongisporus

93.04%

>0.99

Taphrinomycotina

Schizosaccharomyces pombe

97.38%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida albicans

89.95%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Acremonium strictum

78.95%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Aspergillus flavus

85.96%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Aspergillus fumigatus

81.85%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Aspergillus niger

113.61%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Aspergillus versicolor

89.59%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Aureobasidium pullulans

84.08%

>0.98

Pezizomycotina

Chaetomium globosum

85.44%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Elaphomyces decipiens

94.78%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Exophiala dermatitidis

76.29%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Fusarium equiseti

89.66%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Fusarium oxysporum

99.70%

>0.98

Pezizomycotina

Fusarium solani

103.38%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Microsporum canis

84.23%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Neurospora crassa

90.65%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Paecilomyces lilacinus

90.69%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Paecilomyces sinensis

82.30%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Paecilomyces variotii

95.15%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Penicillium marneffei

96.54%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Scedosporium apiospermum

91.58%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Sporothrix schenckii

90.86%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Trichophyton mentagrophytes

92.82%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Trichophyton rubrum

91.43%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida famata

90.13%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida guilliermondii

82.24%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida haemulonii

99.82%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida intermedia

81.72%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida quercitrusa

98.16%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Candida tropicalis

88.28%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Geotrichum candidum

79.76%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Pichia ohmeri

102.31%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Saccharomycopsis crataegensis

80.98%

>0.99

Saccharomycotina

Stephanoascus ciferrii

85.84%

>0.99

Mucoromycotina

Absidia corymbifera

92.33%

>0.99

Mucoromycotina

Cunninghamella bertholletiae

80.03%

>0.99

Mucoromycotina

Rhizopus microsporus

89.16%

>0.99

Mucoromycotina

Rhizopus oryzae

87.96%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Alternaria sp.

103.70%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Cladosporium cladosporioides

92.87%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Cytospora chrysosperma

100.50%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Endoconidioma sp.

89.93%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Geopora sp.

114.45%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Phoma herbarum

91.94%

>0.99

Pezizomycotina

Xanthomendoza galericulata

94.27%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Agaricus sp.

95.31%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Clavulina coralloides

99.59%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Coprinus sp.

99.70%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Cortinarius sp.

102.68%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Hebeloma crustuliniforme group

91.06%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Melanogaster sp.

102.27%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Pleurotus ostreatus

102.71%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Rhizopogon sp.

107.04%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Sclerogaster xerophilus

92.17%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Sedecula pulvinata

92.26%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Tricholoma populinum

89.53%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon asahii

78.03%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon asteroides

82.66%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon cutaneum

86.66%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon dermatis

80.27%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon faecale

84.05%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon montevideense

77.43%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon mucoides

82.87%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Trichosporon ovoides

105.59%

>0.99

Pucciniomycotina

Rhodotorula mucilaginosa

96.29%

>0.99

Pucciniomycotina

Rhodotorula slooffiae

99.94%

>0.99

Agaricomycotina

Lactarius sp.

86.76-89.03%

>0.99

Table 4

FungiQuant quantitative validation results, obtained using pure plasmid standards and different mixed templates

Templates tested

Assay quantitative dynamic range

Average reaction efficiency (SD)

r 2 -value

10 μl Reaction

   

Plasmid standards-only

25 – 107 copies

91.80% (1.91%)

>0.99

Plasmid standards plus 0.5 ng human DNA

25 – 107 copies

93.20% (0.70%)

>0.99

Plasmid standards plus 1 ng human DNA

25 – 107 copies

97.02% (4.97%)

>0.99

Plasmid standards plus 5 ng human DNA

25 – 107 copies

92.85% (1.33%)

>0.99

Plasmid standards plus 10 ng human DNA

25 – 107 copies

91.21% (1.79%)

>0.99

C. albicans DNA-only

10 fg – 10 ng

94.75% (2.33%)

>0.98

C. albicans DNA plus 1 ng human DNA

10 fg – 10 ng

96.84% (1.93%)

>0.99

5 μl Reaction

   

Plasmid standards-only

25 – 107 copies

92.17% (5.64%)

>0.98

Plasmid standards plus 1 ng human DNA

25 – 107 copies

94.21% (2.92%)

>0.99

Plasmid standards plus 10 ng human DNA

50 – 108 copies

92.64% (2.39%)

>0.99

Table 5

Interpretation of FungiQuant results for detecting fungal DNA (i.e., rejecting the Null Hypothesis) based on triplicate 5 μl and 10 μl reactions

Triplicate pattern

Probability under the Null Hypothesis (Ho: human DNA only)

10 μl Reaction

 

+++

<0.001

++−

0.008

+−−

0.077

---

0.744

5 μl Reaction

 

+++

0.006

++−

0.026

+−−

0.120

---

0.557

FungiQuant amplification and quantitative profiles against pure plasmids, C. albicansDNA, and templates with background human DNA

We showed FungiQuant had excellent amplification profiles against C. albicans plasmid standards and C. albicans DNA, with quantitative dynamic range of 25 – 107 copies and 10 fg – 10 ng C. albicans DNA, respectively (Figure 2A-B). A list of fungal species that are perfect matches to C. albicans in the FungiQuant primer and probe region can be found in Additional file 5: Table S6.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-12-255/MediaObjects/12866_2012_Article_1878_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

A-B. FungiQuant amplification profiles. The FungiQuant amplification profiles remain consistent, irrespective of reaction volume and type of DNA template. The amplification profiles of plasmid standards (Fig. 2A) and C. albicans DNA (Fig. 2B) in two reaction volumes (5 μl and 10 μl) are presented.

We also showed that FungiQuant had strong reproducibility, even when we added background human DNA. The inter-run coefficients of variance (CoV) ranged from 0.37 – 3.80% and 3.52 – 34.39% for Ct-value and copy number, respectively. The intra-run average CoV were 0.35 – 2.90% and 1.98 – 23.74% Ct-value and copy number, respectively (Figure 3, Additional file 6: Figure S2). We found that 5 μl reactions had greater inter-run CoV than 10 μl reactions (Figure 3). This suggests that the 10 μl reaction volumes is better suited for quantitative use.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2180-12-255/MediaObjects/12866_2012_Article_1878_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

A-B. FungiQuant inter- and intra-run coefficient of variation (CoV). FungiQuant CoV is presented for copy number (solid line) and Ct-value (dashed line), demonstrating the range of CoV, which is lower for the 10 μl than the 5 μl reactions. For the 10 μl reactions, the FungiQuant intra-run copy number CoV is consistently below 15% until at 25 copies, and for the 5 μl reactions, the intra-run CoV is below 20% until at 50 copies. The FungiQuant Ct-value CoV is consistently below 10%, irrespective of reaction volumes.

We further determined that FungiQuant’s amplification profile and assay dynamic range were not impacted by the presence of human DNA, at up to 10 ng (Table 4, Additional file 7: Figure S3A-D). Thus, FungiQuant is robust quantitatively even when the fungal 18S rRNA gene is relatively rare as compared to background human DNA. Specifically, we showed that FungiQuant could be applied quantitatively at a ratio of 25:679,464 fungal-to-human 18S rRNA gene copy number.

FungiQuant is robust for low number of fungal 18S rRNA gene

To validate FungiQuant use for samples with low fungal DNA and high human DNA, we developed guidelines for interpreting triplicate reactions. Additional file 1: Table S2 provides the sensitivity and specificity results from FungiQuant evaluation against multiple positive and negative controls in 10 μl and 5μl reaction volumes. Our analysis showed that FungiQuant could consistently detect 5 copies of 18S rRNA gene template, whereas 1.8 copies were less consistently detected. Nevertheless, further analysis showed that two or more amplification in triplicate reactions is a reliable indicator of positive fungal DNA detection, irrespective of Ct-value(s) obtained (Table 5). These results held for both of the reaction volumes tested.

We also calculated the false negative rate for FungiQuant using the sensitivity associated with 1.8 copies of positive target, a template concentration that provided relatively poor determination. Using a threshold of ≤ 1 positive amplification used for rejecting triplicate results as noise, we determined that the false negative rate could be as high as 80% for samples containing ≤ 1.8 copies when 10 μl reactions are used, and even higher at 87% for samples analyzed using 5 μl reactions. We found that the false negative rate decreased significantly for samples containing 10 and 5 copies, with false negative rates ranging from 0.0% to 0.1%.

We also wanted to determine the utility of Ct-values for delineating true detection in low concentration samples from noise. The means and medians of the Ct-values from amplified wells in the LOD experiments are shown in Additional file 1: Table S3. The medians of the 10 copies and 5 copies samples in 10 μl reaction were statistically lower than water-only or human-only samples. However, the 1.8 copy samples did not have a median value that could be discriminated from the negative control distributions in either reaction volume, despite the approximately one cycle earlier amplifications observed for 5 and 10 copies in 5 μl reactions. Given these results, and the distribution of the Ct-values from each condition tested, we determined the Ct-values for ≥ 5 copies template (Additional file 8: Figure S4). Based on this, we further determined that a one standard deviation cutoff could be used to remove outlying values from a set of triplicate test result. The Ct-value distribution also supports an averaging approach of non-outlying quantified values to determine the best estimate of the true Ct-value using the FungiQuant triplicates in analysis.

Discussion

In the current manuscript, we present our design and validation of FungiQuant, a broad-coverage TaqMan® qPCR assay for quantifying total fungal load and reproducibly detecting 5 copies of the fungal 18S rRNA gene using triplicate 10 μl reactions. The in silico analysis was an important component of our validation of FungiQuant against diverse fungal sequence types, even though sequence matching is not a perfect predictor of laboratory performance [38]. Many factors are known to affect reaction efficiency, such as oligonucleotide thermodynamics, the type of PCR master mix used, and the template DNA extraction method. Thus, given the range of FungiQuant reaction efficiency against different fungal species, we expect FungiQuant to be more accurate in longitudinal than cross-sectional studies. Background nontarget genomic DNA is another factor known to affect assays targeting the conserved rRNA gene [39]. To address this, we have developed FungiQuant analysis guideline for differentiating random noise from true detection. Lastly, to address the potential presence of exogenous fungal DNA, we recommend the use of negative controls at each sample processing and analysis step.

With respect to FungiQuant LOD, it is worth noting that a concentration of 1.8 copies/μl of 18S rRNA gene is the equivalent of 0.5 fg/μl of C. albicans DNA, with the assumption of 55 18S rRNA gene copy number per haploid genome [40]. This concentration, using the published haploid genome size of 15.185 × 10-3 pg for C. albicans shows that 0.5 fg is the equivalent of 1/30 of a single C. albicans genome [40]. Using the same estimates, the 5-copy LOD of FungiQuant is thus the equivalent of 1.38 fg/μl of C. albicans DNA, or the 1/11 of a single C. albicans genome. Similar conversions of DNA concentration and genomic equivalents for LOD estimation for other fungal species can be performed accordingly; this can help to facilitate estimation of DNA concentrations and genomic equivalents of fungi present at levels below other quantitation approaches, including spectrometric and fluorimetric methods.

Use of a probe-based reporting mechanism is an important feature in FungiQuant in two respects. First, it enhances the quantitative capability of FungiQuant, and secondly, improves assay specificity. An example illustrating the advantage of probe-based reporting is the comparison of FungiQuant with an intercalating dye-based qPCR assay, which had amplification efficiencies ranging from 67-103% and a LOD of 500pg of fungal DNA [30]. Additionally, the intercalating dye can generate amplification signal irrespective of amplicon size or composition.

In summary, we have developed and evaluated a new broad-coverage qPCR assay—FungiQuant—for diverse fungal detection and quantification that showed broad assay coverage and favorable quantitative parameters. A limitation of the current manuscript is the conversion from 18S rRNA gene copy number to the number of cells or biomass. In order to generate an estimated genomic equivalent, improved knowledge of 18S rRNA gene copy number of diverse fungi is required. And given that 18S rRNA gene copy number varies among fungal species and even among strains or over the lifetime of the fungi [4143], this challenge will likely to persist. In addition to the design and validation of a broad-coverage fungal qPCR assay, our manuscript also sought to address basic limitations of evaluating combined primer and probe coverage, as well as generating reference standards for absolute quantification. Our approach of evaluating assay coverage by considering the primer and probe sequences as a single unit is appropriate and necessary. Additionally, our approach of quantifying plasmid standards using the intrinsic property of real-time PCR is another important step for any absolute quantification experiments using qPCR.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01AI087409-01A1, R15DE021194-01), the Department of Defense (W81XWH1010870), the TGen Foundation, the Northern Arizona University Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF) fund, and the Cowden Endowment in Microbiology at Northern Arizona University. We thank Tania Contente-Cuomo, Jordan L. Buchhagen, and Bridget McDermott at the Translational Genomics Research Institute for assistance with the real-time PCR portion of the work presented in this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Pathogen Genomics, Translational Genomics Research Institute
(2)
Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University
(3)
Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
(4)
Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, National Taiwan University College of Medicine
(5)
Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital
(6)
Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University
(7)
Ross University School of Medicine

References

  1. Blackwell M: The fungi: 1, 2, 3 … 5.1 million species?. Am J Bot. 2011, 98 (3): 426-438. 10.3732/ajb.1000298.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Hawksworth DL: The magnitude of fungal diversity: the 1.5 million species estimate revisited. Mycol Res. 2001, 105 (12): 1422-1432. 10.1017/S0953756201004725.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Ghannoum MA, Jurevic RJ, Mukherjee PK, Cui F, Sikaroodi M, Naqvi A, Gillevet PM: Characterization of the oral fungal microbiome (mycobiome) in healthy individuals. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6 (1): e1000713-10.1371/journal.ppat.1000713.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Mancini N, Carletti S, Ghidoli N, Cichero P, Burioni R, Clementi M: The era of molecular and other non-culture-based methods in diagnosis of sepsis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010, 23 (1): 235-251. 10.1128/CMR.00043-09.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Park HK, Ha MH, Park SG, Kim MN, Kim BJ, Kim W: Characterization of the fungal microbiota (mycobiome) in healthy and dandruff-afflicted human scalps. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (2): e32847-10.1371/journal.pone.0032847.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher MC, Henk DA, Briggs CJ, Brownstein JS, Madoff LC, McCraw SL, Gurr SJ: Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature. 2012, 484 (7393): 186-194. 10.1038/nature10947.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Kontoyiannis DP: Invasive mycoses: strategies for effective management. Am J Med. 2012, 125 (1 Suppl): S25-38.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ostrosky-Zeichner L: Invasive mycoses: diagnostic challenges. Am J Med. 2012, 125 (1 Suppl): S14-24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Geha DJ, Roberts GD: Laboratory detection of fungemia. Clin Lab Med. 1994, 14 (1): 83-97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Verdaguer V, Walsh TJ, Hope W, Cortez KJ: Galactomannan antigen detection in the diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2007, 7 (1): 21-32. 10.1586/14737159.7.1.21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Mennink-Kersten MA, Donnelly JP, Verweij PE: Detection of circulating galactomannan for the diagnosis and management of invasive aspergillosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004, 4 (6): 349-357. 10.1016/S1473-3099(04)01045-X.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Balada-Llasat JM, LaRue H, Kamboj K, Rigali L, Smith D, Thomas K, Pancholi P: Detection of yeasts in blood cultures by the Luminex xTAG fungal assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2012, 50 (2): 492-494. 10.1128/JCM.06375-11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Oz Y, Kiraz N: Diagnostic methods for fungal infections in pediatric patients: microbiological, serological and molecular methods. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011, 9 (3): 289-298. 10.1586/eri.10.168.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Amend AS, Seifert KA, Samson R, Bruns TD: Indoor fungal composition is geographically patterned and more diverse in temperate zones than in the tropics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010, 107 (31): 13748-13753. 10.1073/pnas.1000454107.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Jumpponen A, Jones KL: Massively parallel 454 sequencing indicates hyperdiverse fungal communities in temperateQuercus macrocarpaphyllosphere. New Phytol. 2009, 184 (2): 438-448. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02990.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Bowker MA, Johnson NC, Belnap J, Koch GW: Short-term monitoring of aridland lichen cover and biomass using photography and fatty acids. J Arid Environ. 2008, 72 (6): 869-878. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2007.11.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Davey ML, Nybakken L, Kauserud H, Ohlson M: Fungal biomass associated with the phyllosphere of bryophytes and vascular plants. Mycol Res. 2009, 113 (Pt 11): 1254-1260.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Eikenes M, Hietala AM, Alfredsen G, Gunnar Fossdal C, Solheim H: Comparison of quantitative real-time PCR, chitin and ergosterol assays for monitoring colonization ofTrametes versicolorin birch wood. Holzforschung. 2005, 59 (5): 568-573.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Olsson PA, Larsson L, Bago B, Wallander H, van Aarle IM: Ergosterol and fatty acids for biomass estimation of mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 2003, 159 (1): 7-10. 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00810.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. McGonigle TP, Miller MH, Evans DG, Fairchild GL, Swan JA: A new method which gives an objective measure of colonization of roots by vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 1990, 115 (3): 495-501. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1990.tb00476.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Carroll GC, Carroll FE: Studies on the incidence of coniferous needle endophytes in the Pacific Northwest. Can J Bot. 1978, 56 (24): 3034-3043. 10.1139/b78-367.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Elamo P, Helander ML, Saloniemi I, Neuvonen S: Birch family and environmental conditions affect endophytic fungi in leaves. Oecologia. 1999, 118 (2): 151-156. 10.1007/s004420050713.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Amend AS, Seifert KA, Bruns TD: Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?. Mol Ecol. 2010, 19 (24): 5555-5565. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04898.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Dickie IA, FitzJohn RG: Using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) to identify mycorrhizal fungi: a methods review. Mycorrhiza. 2007, 17 (4): 259-270. 10.1007/s00572-007-0129-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Meklin T, Haugland RA, Reponen T, Varma M, Lummus Z, Bernstein D, Wymer LJ, Vesper SJ: Quantitative PCR analysis of house dust can reveal abnormal mold conditions. J Environ Monit. 2004, 6 (7): 615-620. 10.1039/b400250d.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Einsele H, Hebart H, Roller G, Loffler J, Rothenhofer I, Muller CA, Bowden RA, van Burik J, Engelhard D, Kanz L, et al: Detection and identification of fungal pathogens in blood by using molecular probes. J Clin Microbiol. 1997, 35 (6): 1353-1360.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Haugland RA, Varma M, Wymer LJ, Vesper SJ: Quantitative PCR analysis of selected Aspergillus, Penicillium and Paecilomyces species. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2004, 27 (2): 198-210. 10.1078/072320204322881826.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Mussap M, Molinari MP, Senno E, Gritti P, Soro B, Mannelli S, Fabris C: New diagnostic tools for neonatal sepsis: the role of a real-time polymerase chain reaction for the early detection and identification of bacterial and fungal species in blood samples. J Chemother. 2007, 19 (Suppl 2): 31-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Landlinger C, Preuner S, Baskova L, van Grotel M, Hartwig NG, Dworzak M, Mann G, Attarbaschi A, Kager L, Peters C, et al: Diagnosis of invasive fungal infections by a real-time panfungal PCR assay in immunocompromised pediatric patients. Leukemia. 2010, 24 (12): 2032-2038. 10.1038/leu.2010.209.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Chemidlin Prevost-Boure N, Christen R, Dequiedt S, Mougel C, Lelievre M, Jolivet C, Shahbazkia HR, Guillou L, Arrouays D, Ranjard L: Validation and application of a PCR primer set to quantify fungal communities in the soil environment by real-time quantitative PCR. PLoS One. 2011, 6 (9): e24166-10.1371/journal.pone.0024166.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, Mueller R, Nolan T, Pfaffl MW, Shipley GL, et al: The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009, 55 (4): 611-622. 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs BM, Ludwig W, Peplies J, Glockner FO: SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35 (21): 7188-7196. 10.1093/nar/gkm864.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Kibbe WA: OligoCalc: an online oligonucleotide properties calculator. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35 (Web Server issue): W43-46.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgulis A, Coulouris G, Raytselis Y, Madden TL, Agarwala R, Schaffer AA: Database indexing for production MegaBLAST searches. Bioinformatics. 2008, 24 (16): 1757-1764. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn322.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium: Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature. 2004, 431 (7011): 931-945. 10.1038/nature03001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, Nusbaum C, Zody MC, Baldwin J, Devon K, Dewar K, Doyle M, FitzHugh W, et al: Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 2001, 409 (6822): 860-921. 10.1038/35057062.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Dolezel J, Bartos J, Voglmayr H, Greilhuber J: Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry A. 2003, 51 (2): 127-128. author reply 129PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Morales SE, Holben WE: Empirical testing of 16S rRNA gene PCR primer pairs reveals variance in target specificity and efficacy not suggested by in silico analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009, 75 (9): 2677-2683. 10.1128/AEM.02166-08.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Ludwig W, Schleifer KH: How quantitative is quantitative PCR with respect to cell counts?. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2000, 23 (4): 556-562. 10.1016/S0723-2020(00)80030-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones T, Federspiel NA, Chibana H, Dungan J, Kalman S, Magee BB, Newport G, Thorstenson YR, Agabian N, Magee PT, et al: The diploid genome sequence of Candida albicans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004, 101 (19): 7329-7334. 10.1073/pnas.0401648101.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrera ML, Vallor AC, Gelfond JA, Patterson TF, Wickes BL: Strain-dependent variation in 18S ribosomal DNA Copy numbers in Aspergillus fumigatus. J Clin Microbiol. 2009, 47 (5): 1325-1332. 10.1128/JCM.02073-08.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Kobayashi T: Regulation of ribosomal RNA gene copy number and its role in modulating genome integrity and evolutionary adaptability in yeast. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2011, 68 (8): 1395-1403. 10.1007/s00018-010-0613-2.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Ide S, Miyazaki T, Maki H, Kobayashi T: Abundance of ribosomal RNA gene copies maintains genome integrity. Science. 2010, 327 (5966): 693-696. 10.1126/science.1179044.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Liu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.