ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of qPCR protocols for quantification of "Candidatus Saccharibacteria", belonging to the Candidate Phyla Radiation, suggests that 23S rRNA is a better target than 16S rRNA.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCandidate Phyla Radiation (CPR) is a large monophyletic group encompassing about 25% of bacterial diversity. Among CPR, "Candidatus Saccharibacteria" is one of the most clinically relevant phyla. Indeed, it is enriched in the oral microbiota of subjects suffering from immune-mediated disorders and it has been found to have immunomodulatory activities. For these reasons, it is crucial to have reliable methods to detect and quantify this bacterial lineage in human samples, including saliva. METHODS AND
resultsFour qPCR protocols for quantifying "Ca. Saccharibacteria" (one targeting the 23S rRNA gene and three the 16S) were tested and compared. The efficiency and coverage of these four protocols were evaluated in silico on large genomic datasets, and in vitro on salivary DNA samples, already characterized by amplicon sequencing on the V3-V4 regions of the 16S rRNA. In silico PCR analyses showed that all qPCR primers lose part of the "Ca. Saccharibacteria" genetic variability, even if the 23S qPCR primers matched more lineages than the 16S qPCR primers. In vitro qPCR experiments confirmed that all 16S-based protocols strongly underestimated "Ca. Saccharibacteria" in salivary DNA, while the 23S qPCR protocol gave quantifications more comparable to 16S amplicon sequencing.
conclusionOverall, our results show that the 23S-based qPCR protocol is more precise than the 16S-based ones in quantifying "Ca. Saccharibacteria", although all protocols probably underestimate specific lineages. These results underline the current limits in quantifying "Ca. Saccharibacteria", highlighting the needs for novel experimental strategies or methods. Indeed, the underestimation of "Ca. Saccharibacteria" in clinical samples could hide its role in human health and in the development of immune-mediated diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.