Author: Enora Dupas; Bruno Legendre; Valérie Olivier; Françoise Poliakoff; Charles Manceau; Amandine Cunty
Title: Comparison of real-time PCR and droplet digital PCR for the detection of Xylella fastidiosa in plants Document date: 2019_3_20
ID: 0xc02kkb_12
Snippet: i.e, 5x10 3 b/g of plant for Q. ilex, P. myrtifolia and the bacterial suspension. The bias between 297 the detected amount of DNA and the presumed amount of DNA provided was calculated for 298 each matrix at the limit of detection. Compared to the quantity of DNA expected, DNA 299 quantifications of Xf were overestimated by 6.54% and 23.96% in Q. ilex and in the bacterial 300 suspension, respectively. In L. angustifolia, R. officinalis, P. myrtif.....
Document: i.e, 5x10 3 b/g of plant for Q. ilex, P. myrtifolia and the bacterial suspension. The bias between 297 the detected amount of DNA and the presumed amount of DNA provided was calculated for 298 each matrix at the limit of detection. Compared to the quantity of DNA expected, DNA 299 quantifications of Xf were overestimated by 6.54% and 23.96% in Q. ilex and in the bacterial 300 suspension, respectively. In L. angustifolia, R. officinalis, P. myrtifolia, and O. europaea, the 301 DNA quantifications of Xf were underestimated by 3.08%, 24.36%, 32.03% and 95.60%, 302 respectively. 303 . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license author/funder. It is made available under a The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the . https://doi.org/10.1101/582288 doi: bioRxiv preprint 5.28x10 2 ± 1.90x10 2 (4/9) 6.17x10 3 ± 1.39x10 3 (3/3) 4.95x10 3 ± 4.04x10 2 (3/3) 5.49x10 3 ± 2.98x10 2 (3/3) 5x10 3 2.84x10 3 ± 8.78x10 2 (9/9) 4.85x10 3 ± 1.21x10 3 (3/3) 4.25x10 2 ± 0.00 (1/9) 5.14x10 3 ± 1.48x10 3 (3/3) 2.81x10 3 ± 7.90x10 2 (9/9) 3.78x10 3 ± 2.16x10 3 (9/9) 1x10 3 8.54x10 2 ± 2.57x10 2 (9/9) 5.66x10 2 ± 1.63x10 2 (6/9) No Call (0/9) 6.80x10 2 ± 2.68x10 2 (9/9) 1.07x10 3 ± 5.58x10 2 (9/9) 9.04x10 2 ± 1.61x10 2 (7/9) 5x10 2 6.20x10 2 ± 1.19x10 2 (8/9) No Call (0/9) No Call (0/9) 5.15x10 2 ± 1.43x10 2 (4/9) 7.17x10 2 ± 2.59x10 2 (7/9) 6.18x10 2 ± 4.56x10 2 (5/9) 1x10 2 5.84x10 2 ± 2.06x10 2 (6/9) 3.73x10 2 ± 0.00 (1/9) No Call (0/9) 1.77x10 2 ± 0.00 (1/9) 6.23x10 2 ± 1.50x10 2 (7/9) 2.01x10 2 ± 2.92x10 1 (2/9) 308 As for ddPCR, all the real-time PCR matrix standard curves showed high linearity and 309 amplification efficiency, as the correlation coefficient (R²) was greater than 0.97. This indicated 310 the successful outcomes and good performances of all the assays (Table 2) . 311
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- amplification efficiency and detection limit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- amplification efficiency and dna detect: 1
- amplification efficiency and high linearity: 1
- amplification efficiency and R² correlation coefficient: 1
- amplification efficiency and real time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
- amplification efficiency and standard curve: 1, 2
- bacterial suspension and detection limit: 1, 2
- bacterial suspension and dna quantity: 1
- bacterial suspension and PCR matrix: 1
- bacterial suspension and real time: 1, 2, 3
- correlation coefficient and detection limit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
- correlation coefficient and good performance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
- correlation coefficient and high linearity: 1
- correlation coefficient and R² correlation coefficient: 1
- correlation coefficient and real time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- correlation coefficient and standard curve: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- detection limit and dna quantity: 1
- detection limit and real time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- detection limit and standard curve: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date