Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 21, 2012; 18(3): 268-274
Published online Jan 21, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i3.268
Published online Jan 21, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i3.268
Table 1 Specific bacterial primers
| Genus | Primer(5'→3') |
| Universal primer | F: CAGGATTAGATACCCTGGTAGT |
| R: TTGCGCTCGTTGCGGGACTT | |
| Enterococcus | F: CACCGGAGCTTGCTCCACCG |
| R: TGGCTCCAAAAGGTTACTTC | |
| Enterobacterium | F: AGAGCTTGCTCTCGGGTGAC |
| R:TAAGCTACCTACTTCTTTTGCAA | |
| Eubacterium | F: GCAACCCTCTCCGGAGGGAAGCG |
| R: TTCACCCCCCTCACCCTCCACAC | |
| Bifidobacterium | F: GGCTNGAGCTTGCTCCGGCT |
| R: GNCTCACCTTAGACGGCTCC | |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | F: GAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAGG |
| R: CTGTCCCACCTTAGRCGGCT | |
| Lactobacillus casei | F: GAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAGG |
| R: CTGTCCCACCTTAGRCGGCT |
Table 2 Specific probes
| Genus | Ligase detection reaction probes | Ligase chain reaction antisense probes | Product length (bp) |
| Enterococcus | F: (T)20-TTTGACCACTCTAGAGATAG | F: (T)10-TTGCCCCCGAAGGGGAAGCT | 80 |
| R: P-AGCTTCCCCTTCGGGGGCAA(T)20-FAM | R: CTATCTCTAGAGTGGTCAAA-(T)10 | ||
| Enterobacterium | F: (T)23-TTGGAGGTTGTGCCCTTGAG | F: CTCAAGGGCACAACCTCCAA-(T)10 | 85 |
| R: P-GCGTGGCTTCCGGAGCTAAC(T)22-FAM | R: (T)10-GTTAGCTCCGGAAGCCACGC | ||
| Eubacterium | F: (T)25-TTGACATATGGGTGAAGCGG | F: CCGCTTCACCCATATGTCAA-(T)10 | 90 |
| R: P-GGGAGACCCCGTGGCCGAGA(T)25-FAM | R: (T)10-TCTCGGCCACGGGGTCTCCC | ||
| Bifidobacterium | F: (T)28-GGATGTGGGGCCCGTTCCA | F: (T)10-TAGCTCCGACACGGAACCCG | 95 |
| R: P-CGGGTTCCGTGTCGGAGCTAT(T)27-FAM | R: TGGAACGGGCCCCACATCCA-(T)10 | ||
| Lactobacillus casei | F: (T)30-CAGGTCTTGACATCTTTTGA | F: (T)10-AAACCTGATCTCTCAGGTGA | 100 |
| R: P-TCACCTGAGAGATCAGGTTT(T)30-FAM | R: TCAAAAGATGTCAAGACCTG-(T)10 | ||
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | F: (T)33-GGTCTTGACATCTAGTGCAA | F: (T)10-GAACTCCGTATCTCTACGGA | 105 |
| R: P-TCCGTAGAGATACGGAGTTC(T)32-FAM | R: TTGCACTAGATGTCAAGACC-(T)10 | ||
| IC 1# | F: (T)30-CACAGGGCTTTCCACCATCCGTGTC | 110 | |
| R: P-GTAGCGGCCAAGCTGCCACGACAGG(T)30-FAM | |||
| IC 2# | F: (T)-33-GACATTCGGCAGGCAATCACAGCCT | F: (T)10-GTAAGGTCTTGCAAACGTTCACATC | 115 |
| R: P-GATGTGAACGTTTGCAAGACCTTAC(T)32-FAM | R: AGGCTGTGATTGCCTGCCGAATGTC-(T)10 |
Table 3 Design of two sets of probe mixture
| Genus | Mixed probes No. 1 | Mixed probes No. 2 | ||
| LDR (pM) | LCR (pM) | LDR (pM) | LCR (pM) | |
| Enterobacterium | 51 | 5 | ||
| Eubacterium | 5 | 5 | ||
| Bifidobacterium | 5 | 5 | ||
| Enterococcus | 5 | 5 | ||
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | 5 | 5 | ||
| Lactobacillus casei | 5 | 5 | ||
| IC 1# | 5 | 5 | ||
| IC 2# | 5 | 5 | ||
Table 4 Experiment designIand II (detected with probe mixture No. 1 and 2)
| Trial | Factor | |||||||
| Enterobacterium c | Eubacterium | Bifidobacterium | Enterococcus | Lactobacillus casei | Lactobacillus acidophilus | IC 1# | IC 2# | |
| Detected with probe mixture No. 1 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.0625 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.000625 | 0.25 | 0.0025 |
| 2 | 0.5 | 0.0625 | 0.125 | 0.005 | 0.000625 | 0.00125 | 0.0625 | 0.000625 |
| 3 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 1 | 0.01 |
| 4 | 0.125 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.00125 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.125 | 0.00125 |
| 5 | 0.0625 | 0.125 | 1 | 0.000625 | 0.00125 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.005 |
| Detected with probe mixture No. 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.005 | 0.000625 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.000625 | 0.25 | 0.0025 |
| 2 | 0.5 | 0.000625 | 0.00125 | 0.005 | 0.000625 | 0.00125 | 0.0625 | 0.000625 |
| 3 | 0.25 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 0.0025 | 1 | 0.01 |
| 4 | 0.125 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.00125 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.125 | 0.00125 |
| 5 | 0.0625 | 0.00125 | 0.01 | 0.000625 | 0.00125 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.005 |
Table 5 Statistics of sample detection
| Bacterium | Enterococcus | Enterobacterium | Eubacterium | Bifidobacterium | Lactobacillus casei | Lactobacillus acidophilus | |
| Probe | LCR | LDR | LDR | LDR | LCR | LCR | LCR |
| No. of detected sample | 29 | 77 | 42 | 46 | 23 | 80 | 77 |
| Detection rate(%) | 35.37 | 93.90 | 51.22 | 84.15 | 97.56 | 93.90 | |
Table 6 Detection limits of mixed samples with ligase detection reaction probes
| Eubac | LDR | Dilution times | 64 | 32 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Detection result | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| IC 1# | LDR | Dilution times | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | ||
| Detection result | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Bifido | LCR | Dilution times | 100 | 200 | 400 | 800 | 1600 | 3200 | 6400 | 12 800 | 25 600 | ||||||
| Detection result | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | ||||||||
| IC 1# | LDR | Dilution times | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Detection result | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||
| Bifido | LCR | Detecion result | 128 | 64 | 32 | 16 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Dilution times | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| L. casei | LCR | Detection result | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 |
| Dilution times | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - |
- Citation: Tang ZR, Li K, Zhou YX, Xiao ZX, Xiao JH, Huang R, Gu GH. Comparative quantification of human intestinal bacteria based on cPCR and LDR/LCR. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(3): 268-274
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i3/268.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i3.268
