Molecular indicators used in the development of predictive models for microbial source tracking
- PMID: 20118380
- PMCID: PMC2838024
- DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02350-09
Molecular indicators used in the development of predictive models for microbial source tracking
Abstract
A number of chemical, microbial, and eukaryotic indicators have been proposed as indicators of fecal pollution sources in water bodies. No single one of the indicators tested to date has been able to determine the source of fecal pollution in water. However, the combined use of different indicators has been demonstrated to be the best way of defining predictive models suitable for determining fecal pollution sources. Molecular methods are promising tools that could complement standard microbiological water analysis. In this study, the feasibility of some proposed molecular indicators for microbial source tracking (MST) was compared (names of markers are in parentheses): host-specific Bacteroidetes (HF134, HF183, CF128, and CF193), Bifidobacterium adolescentis (ADO), Bifidobacterium dentium (DEN), the gene esp of Enterococcus faecium, and host-specific mitochondrial DNA associated with humans, cattle, and pigs (Humito, Bomito, and Pomito, respectively). None of the individual molecular markers tested enabled 100% source identification. They should be combined with other markers to raise sensitivity and specificity and increase the number of sources that are identified. MST predictive models using only these molecular markers were developed. The models were evaluated by considering the lowest number of molecular indicators needed to obtain the highest rate of identification of fecal sources. The combined use of three molecular markers (ADO, Bomito, and Pomito) enabled correct identification of 75.7% of the samples, with differentiation between human, swine, bovine, and poultry sources. Discrimination between human and nonhuman fecal pollution was possible using two markers: ADO and Pomito (84.6% correct identification). The percentage of correct identification increased with the number of markers analyzed. The best predictive model for distinguishing human from nonhuman fecal sources was based on 5 molecular markers (HF134, ADO, DEN, Bomito, and Pomito) and provided 90.1% correct classification.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Predicting fecal sources in waters with diverse pollution loads using general and molecular host-specific indicators and applying machine learning methods.J Environ Manage. 2015 Mar 15;151:317-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.002. Epub 2015 Jan 10. J Environ Manage. 2015. PMID: 25585145
-
Evaluation of two library-independent microbial source tracking methods to identify sources of fecal contamination in French estuaries.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Aug;73(15):4857-66. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03003-06. Epub 2007 Jun 8. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007. PMID: 17557850 Free PMC article.
-
Human-Associated Lachnospiraceae Genetic Markers Improve Detection of Fecal Pollution Sources in Urban Waters.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018 Jul 2;84(14):e00309-18. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00309-18. Print 2018 Jul 15. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018. PMID: 29728386 Free PMC article.
-
State of the art molecular markers for fecal pollution source tracking in water.Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Mar;89(5):1341-55. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-3080-7. Epub 2011 Jan 6. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011. PMID: 21210102 Review.
-
Application of enteric viruses for fecal pollution source tracking in environmental waters.Environ Int. 2012 Sep 15;45:151-64. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.02.009. Epub 2012 Apr 24. Environ Int. 2012. PMID: 22537583 Review.
Cited by
-
Detection of human fecal contamination by nifH gene quantification of marine waters in the coastal beaches of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016 Dec;23(24):25210-25217. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7737-3. Epub 2016 Sep 29. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016. PMID: 27680008
-
New molecular quantitative PCR assay for detection of host-specific Bifidobacteriaceae suitable for microbial source tracking.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Aug;78(16):5788-95. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00895-12. Epub 2012 Jun 8. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012. PMID: 22685136 Free PMC article.
-
Bifidobacterial diversity and the development of new microbial source tracking indicators.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 May;77(10):3518-25. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02198-10. Epub 2011 Apr 1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011. PMID: 21460117 Free PMC article.
-
Shared bacterial communities between soil, stored drinking water, and hands in rural Bangladeshi households.Water Res X. 2020 May 23;9:100056. doi: 10.1016/j.wroa.2020.100056. eCollection 2020 Dec 1. Water Res X. 2020. PMID: 32529181 Free PMC article.
-
Relevance of Bacteroidales and F-specific RNA bacteriophages for efficient fecal contamination tracking at the level of a catchment in France.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Aug;78(15):5143-52. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00315-12. Epub 2012 May 18. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012. PMID: 22610433 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ahmed, W., J. Stewart, T. Gardner, D. Powell, P. Brooks, D. Sullivan, and N. Tindale. 2007. Sourcing faecal pollution: a combination of library-dependent and library-independent methods to identify human faecal pollution in non-sewered catchments. Water Res. 41:3771-3779. - PubMed
-
- Ahmed, W., J. Stewart, D. Powell, and T. Gardner. 2008. Evaluation of Bacteroides markers for the detection of human faecal pollution. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 46:237-242. - PubMed
-
- Allsop, K., and D. J. Stickler. 1985. An assessment of Bacteroides fragilis group organisms as indicators of human faecal pollution. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 58:95-99. - PubMed
-
- Baker-Austin, C., J. Morris, J. A. Lowther, R. Rangdale, and D. N. Lees. 2009. Rapid identification and differentiation of agricultural faecal contamination sources using multiplex PCR. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 49:529-532. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical