Next Article in Journal
Preclinical Safety Assessment of Bacillus subtilis BS50 for Probiotic and Food Applications
Previous Article in Journal
First Case Report of Detection of Multidrug-Resistant Enterobacter hormaechei in Clinical Sample from an Aborted Ruminant
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Improved Method for Quantification of Viable Fusarium Cells in Infected Soil Products by Propidium Monoazide Coupled with Real-Time PCR

1
College of Horticulture, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
2
Institute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
3
Shouguang R&D Center of Vegetables, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Weifang 262700, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 14 April 2022 / Revised: 7 May 2022 / Accepted: 8 May 2022 / Published: 17 May 2022

Abstract

:
Fusarium is a soil-borne pathogen that causes root rot disease in cucumber. To date, quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is a common tool to detect the content of Fusarium in soil. However, qPCR cannot distinguish between viable and nonviable cells. The aim of this study was to develop a detection technique to pretreat tissue fluid with propidium monoazide (PMA) followed by extract DNA, and then to quantify viable Fusarium cells in contaminated soil. In this work, the specific primer pair F8-1/F8-2 was designed based on the translation elongation factor (EF) gene and a PMA-qPCR assay was established to amplify and quantify soils of viable Fusarium cells. The PMA pretreatment test was optimized, which indicated that the optimal PMA concentration and light exposure time were 50 mmol L−1 and 15 min, respectively. The lowest limit of viable cells in suspension detected and soil by PMA-qPCR were 82 spore mL−1 and 91.24 spore g−1, respectively. For naturally contaminated soil, viable Fusarium cells were detected in eight of the 18 samples, and the Fusarium amount ranged from 104 to 106 spore g−1. In conclusion, the PMA-qPCR method has the characteristics of high sensitivity, efficiency, and time saving, which could support nursery plants to avoid Fusarium infection and agro-industry losses.

1. Introduction

Fusarium sp. are fungi that are the causal agents of vegetable root rot, which is an economically important soil-borne disease of vegetable species and is responsible for substantial crop losses [1]. Fusarium sp. include Fusarium solani, Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium equiseti, and Fusarium moniliforme, which can infect a variety of crops and vegetables [2].
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is an important global vegetable crop whose production can be severely hindered by infection with F. solani. This pathogen causes root rot disease with symptoms that include necrotic lesions and vascular and root rot, threatening cucumber production around the world [3]. F. solani was first discovered in South Africa in 1930 and subsequently reported in different areas, such as Africa and China [4]. F. solani often survives in soil or diseased bodies for a long time, as it can form resistant structures called chlamydospores [5]. These characteristics make eradication quite difficult because chlamydospores, conidia, and mycelia may be sources of infection [6]. It is obviously necessary to perform the rapid and accurate detection of F. solani to ensure the healthy growth of cucumbers and reduce the incidence of disease.
So far, methods to detect F. solani are based on pathogen isolation, microscope observation, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time qPCR (qPCR), TaqMan real-time PCR, amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs), and others [7,8,9,10]. However, the limitation of nucleic acid-based detection techniques is that they cannot distinguish between viable and nonviable cells, since the DNA of dead cells can exist in air or soil for a long time [11]. Hence, with the DNA of dead cells, PCR amplification overestimates the number of viable Fusarium sp. cells. In addition, they are potential mycotoxin producers. Therefore, these detection methods cannot be used to assess the potential risk of fungal infection in plant products or soil.
To overcome this problem, PMA coupled with qPCR has been proven to be applicable to the detection of dead and viable cells. PMA is one of the most frequently applied non-membrane-permeating dyes, since PMA dye penetrates only cells with damaged membranes and not cells with intact membranes [11]. Therefore, PMA can inhibit the PCR amplification of dead cell DNA and reduce the overestimation of cell count caused by dead cell DNA in qPCR detection [12]. Previous studies have shown that PMA-qPCR technology can be used for detecting and quantifying viable bacterial cells in different vegetable industry fields [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] and specific microorganisms in some food industries [21,22]. However, few reports have focused on fungi [23,24], and no studies have involved Fusarium. Here, it is necessary to develop an effective PMA-qPCR method to detect the viable cells of Fusarium in soil samples.
Therefore, the study aim was to (i) design specific primers for Fusarium based on the translation elongation factor (EF) gene sequences; (ii) optimize the treatment concentration and light exposure time of PMA; (iii) detect the sensitivity of F. solani in the soil; and (iv) estimate the sensitivity of the PMA-qPCR on infected soil in Shandong, Hebei, and Beijing provinces.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Fungal Isolates, Cultivation, and DNA Extraction

In total, 19 strains, including 9 Fusarium sp. strains and 10 non-target strains, were used for primer development and species detection (Table 1). Cultures were grown on Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) medium at 26 °C for 5 days in the dark. Genomic DNA was extracted from fungal mycelia grown on PDA plates using the CTAB method according to the TIANamp Soil DNA Kit instructions [25]. Conidia were collected with a sterile solution of Tween 80 (0.005% v/v) and filtered through Miracloth (Calbiochem, CA, USA). The DNA concentration was determined by a Thermo Scientific Nanodrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Wilmington, DE, USA), and the samples were stored at −40 °C for future analysis.

2.2. Primer Design and qPCR Conditions

In this study, by downloading the partial sequence of the Fusarium EF gene (MK077042) as available in the NCBI database, and using MEGA 7.0 software to compare the sequences, a total of 15 sequences (Table 2) were designed.
The qPCR detection procedure was consistent with the method described by Chai et al. (2020) [26]. Briefly, the 20 μL reaction volume containing 10 μL of SuperReal PreMix Plus, 0.2 μL of F8-1/F8-2 primer (10 μM), 1 μL of template DNA (210 ng) and 0.4 μL of 50 × ROX Reference Dye. Amplification was performed by using the ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Fluorescence was detected after each cycle. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were calculated automatically by ABI 7500 software (Applied Biosystems, Carlsbad, CA, USA).

2.3. Establishment of Standard Curve

The dilution of F. solani with sterile water in a 10-fold dilution series from 8.2 × 107 to 82 spore mL−1 and subsequent DNA extraction and qPCR were performed as described above. The concentration of each sample was repeated for 3 times to determine the standard deviation (SD) of Ct value. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated following a method similar to Chai et al. (2020) [26]. It is noteworthy that the limitation of quantification was specified as the lowest concentration at which replicates showed a CV ≤ 35% at the calculated concentration [27].

2.4. PMA Treatment

PMA treatment was optimized by using Fusarium suspension with different concentrations of viable cells. Tubes containing 1 mL of 107 spore mL−1 suspensions were heat inactivated at 100℃ for 10 min to prevent cell survival [28]. Then heat inactivation suspension was cooled to room temperature, and 100 µL was extracted and placed on 27 °C PDA for 96 h to confirm that the cells were dead.
Before the test, 20% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used to dissolve the PMA solution to the concentration of 20 mmol L−1 and it was stored at −20 °C (dark environment). Under the condition of weak light, the dissolved PMA was quickly added to the sample tubes containing 200 μL of viable/dead cells (derived from 107 spore mL−1 suspensions) to make the final concentrations of 0, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 μmol L−1. After incubating in the dark for 30 min, a 50 W LED light source was used to illuminate sample tubes at a distance of 15 cm for 15 min according to aprevious method [23]. A 200 μL aliquot of the suspension was boiled for 10 min at 100 °C, and after centrifugation (12,000× g, 1 min). The DNA was extracted using a TIANamp Fungi DNA Kit (Tiangen Biotech Co., Ltd. Beijing, China), and in final 1 μL DNA was used directly in qPCR. In order to determine the optimal light exposure time to inhibit F. solani viable cell suspensions, 10 mmol L−1 PMA solution was added to the sample tube of viable or dead cell suspensions in different proportions. The light exposure time was set as 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 min. All samples were centrifuged at 10,000× g for 1 min, and DNA was extracted and amplified by qPCR as described above after PMA treatment. The PMA-qPCR detection of each sample involved the preparation of 3 replicates to ensure the repeatability and reliability of the test.

2.5. Detection of Defined Ratio of Mixture Suspension

In order to clarify the applicability of the PMA-qPCR method for distinguishing viable and dead cells of F. solani, different proportions of mixture suspensions (0.1%, 1%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% viable spore) with a concentration of 1 × 107 spore mL−1, were treated with optimized PMA concentration. Different proportions of mixed suspension (200 μL each) were tested by three methods. (i) mixed suspension diluted to 102 spore mL−1 with sterile water, before the extraction of 100 μL for PDA medium to count fungal colonies (spore)l (ii) DNA from the mixed suspension was directly extracted and amplified by qPCR; and (iii) DNA was extracted from the mixed suspension after PMA pretreatment and amplified by qPCR. Each treated sample was repeated in 3 replicates.

2.6. Detection of F. solani from Artificially Contaminated Soil

The soil was sterilized at 121 °C for 20 min. Then, suspensions of spore of F. solani were treated in distilled water containing Tween 80 (0.005% v/v). The soil (200 g) was infected with 200 mL of spore suspensions (107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, and 10 spore g soil) and homogenized for 60 s. Another 200 g sterilized soil not inoculated with F. solani and infected soil with 107 dead spores was used as the negative control. To analyse the infection of soil F. solani by three methods: (i) 9 mL sterile water and 1 g treated soil were mixed, and 100 μL extracted for PDA medium to count fungal colonies (spore); (ii) pellets were re-suspended in 2 mL of phosphate buffer saline (PBS), before DNA was extracted after treatment with optimized PMA; and (iii) for bioassays, the soil (200 g) containing F. solani was placed in sterilized plastic flowerpots with a diameter of 10 cm. The 50 healthy cucumber seeds were randomly selected and sown in flowerpots for growth in greenhouse. The greenhouse ambient temperature of 18~20 °C (night) and 26~30 °C (day) and 80~100% relative humidity (RH) to checked for the presence or absence of cucumber fungal pathogens. Symptoms of cucumber root rot were checked after 7 days. Disease incidence (DI) was calculated as the percentage of plants with symptoms caused by F. solani in each treatment. Only disease incidence was recorded because commercially diseased plants at any level of severity were discarded at the nurseries.

2.7. Detection of F. solani from Naturally Infested Soil

In 2019–2020, 18 soil samples (about 1 kg) were collected in F. solani-infested fields of Shandong, Hebei, and Beijing provinces. The soil was sifted to remove excess plant residues. 200 g of soil sample and 200 mL of sterile distilled water were mixed in equal proportions, then incubated in a shaking table for 10 min (25 °C in the dark). The treatment of soil suspension shall refer to the description of seed suspension by Chai et al. (2020) [26]. Each sample was verified by bioassays and PMA-qPCR.

2.8. Data Analysis

The differences of various detection techniques were compared using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA, IBM SPSS 20.0). The significance value was determined at the p < 0.05 level and at the 95% confidence level by the Tukey test. Ct values and infection rates were expressed as the mean ± SD.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Screening of the Primers

The instructions of the soil DNA extraction kit, in which only the F8-1/F8-2 primer pair amplifies a single fragment of 189 bp, were used for PCR. The other primers did not amplify a good single band in the corresponding region (Figure 1). Therefore, in the primer screening test, only primers F8-1/F8-2 were used as targets for the next test. A primer pair, F8-1 (5′-GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA-3′) and F8-2 (5′-GCTCAGCGGCTTCCTAT-3′), was designed for the specific amplification of Fusarium DNA based on the sequence alignment of EF gene sequences from Fusarium strains reported in a previous study and reference strains in the NCBI database (Figure 2).

3.2. Specificity of the Primers

A PCR assay confirmed the positive samples and a predictable fragment (189 bp) was observed on agarose gel. Sequence comparison showed that the amplified sequence was 100% similar to the F. solani sequence from the GenBank database. In this sense, the primer can amplify the correct product and has specificity for Fusarium. The primers were specific to Fusarium, of which nine species of Fusarium were amplified, and the other 10 fungal strains were not amplified by qPCR (Figure 3A). In addition, we found that the optimal annealing temperature of primers for qPCR detection of Fusarium was 60 ℃. The Ct values of all F. solani strains were amplified between 18.37~26.52, which were valid data (Table 1). The melting curve of Fusarium strains had a single peak with a Tm = 87, while other fungal strains had no peak (Figure 3B). In this sense, those samples with Ct > 35 and a double peak on the melting curves were considered invalid for the quantification of Fusarium.

3.3. Sensitivity and Standard Curve of qPCR

Using the F. solani suspension with an initial concentration of 8.2 × 107 spore mL−1, seven concentrations were diluted according to a 10 fold gradient and a quantitative standard curve was constructed. The concentration of F. solani spore suspensions has a good linear relationship with the corresponding Ct values (y = −3.1388x + 40.166). The correlation coefficient (R2) was 0.9985 (Figure 4A). The dilution of pure F. solani spore suspensions at a concentration of 82 spore mL−1 produced replicates with a Ct of 34.53. A lower concentration of F. solani spore suspension (8.2 spore mL−1) produced replicates with a Ct > 35. Therefore, the sensitivity limit of qPCR for the detection of F. solani suspension was 82 spore mL−1 (Figure 4B).

3.4. PMA Concentration Optimization

Viable and dead cells of F. solani were pretreated in different concentrations of PMA (0, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 μmol L−1). It is noteworthy that the Ct values of heat inactivated F. solani spores were slightly higher than viable cells. For dead F. solani cell suspensions, the Ct values increased significantly with the increase of PMA concentration from 0 to 50 mmol L−1 (p < 0.05) (Figure 5A). When the PMA concentration increased from 50 to 70 mmol L−1, there was no significant difference in Ct value. Therefore, 50 mmol L−1 was considered the minimum optimal PMA concentration. For viable cell suspensions, there was no significant difference in Ct value with the increase of PMA concentration from 0 to 70 mmol L−1 (p < 0.05). To sum up, PMA concentration had no effect on DNA amplification of viable cells.
The trend of light time screening and concentration treatment was almost similar. The light time presented no significant difference in the Ct values of viable F. solani cells (p < 0.05) (Figure 5B). The Ct values showed a significant upward trend with PMA exposure time from 0 to 15 min for dead cell suspensions (p < 0.05). When the light exposure time was extended from 15 to 25 min, the Ct value did not change significantly (Figure 5B). Thus, 15 min will be the appropriate exposure time to completely inhibit the DNA amplification of dead cells.

3.5. Validation of PMA-qPCR

The PMA-qPCR assay, qPCR assay, and plate-counting method were used to detect the mixed suspension in different proportions. There was no significant change in different concentrations of cells by qPCR. In contrast, the PMA-qPCR and colony counting method showed significant differences in the detection of different proportions of F. solani suspension. When the ratio of viable cells decreased from 100% to 0.1%, the Ct values significantly increased from 15.45 ± 0.45 to 29.09 ± 0.18, and the corresponding viable F. solani cell counts decreased significantly from 7.87 ± 0.14 to 3.53 ± 0.06 log spore mL−1 (p < 0.05). Colony counting analysis showed that with the decrease in the ratios of viable spores, the spore count gradually decreased from 7.03 ± 6.98 to 4.82 ± 0.47 log spore mL−1 (Table 3).

3.6. Detection of Soil Inoculated with F. solani by Different Methods

Different concentrations of viable F. solani spore (10~107 spore mL−1) and dead spores (107 spore mL−1) were used for determination using PMA-qPCR, plate-counting assay, and bioassays, respectively.
The highest number of viable F. solani spores was detected in soil samples contaminated with a fungal suspension of 107 spore mL−1. The content of F. solani in soil was detected by the PMA-qPCR method and plate-counting method, which resulted in 8.77 × 106 spore g−1 and 9.13 × 106 spore g−1, respectively. With the decrease of the number of viable cells in soil infected with F. solani, the detection values of PMA-qPCR and plate-counting decreased gradually. The soil was fairly lowly infected with a F. solani suspension of 102 spore mL−1, with about 91.24 spore g−1 of soil using PMA-qPCR, while no viable F. solani cells were detected in soil samples using the plate-counting assay. Therefore, the PMA-qPCR assay was more sensitive in the detection of soil viable F. solani (Table 4).
In the bioassays, soil inoculation of F. solani was positively correlated with cucumber incidence rate. In the treatment of inoculating 107 viable spores of F. solani in soil, the incidence of cucumber root rot was the most serious, and its DI was 92.67 ± 2.62. We found that the infestation levels of 105~106 viable spores of soil gave DI values of 47.33 ± 1.25 and 76.00 ± 2.45 (p < 0.05), respectively. In contrast, the lowest infection level of symptoms of cucumber root rot was 104 viable spores, and its DI was 10.67 ± 1.25. However, no symptoms of cucumber root rot were observed in soil samples with infection levels less than or equal to 103 viable spores (Table 4).

3.7. Detection of F. solani in Naturally Infested Soil

The PMA-qPCR assay demonstrated that the viable F. solani spores could be reliably quantified in eight naturally infested soil samples, with the soil F. solani content ranging from 104 to 106 viable spores. The highest levels of viable F. solani spores were detected in soil samples originating from an F. solani-infested field in Shandong Province (samples 3, 4 and 5), with Ct values ranging from 18.25 ± 0.30 to 21.38 ± 0.27, which is equivalent to 9.60 × 106 to 9.66 × 105 spore g−1 by PMA-qPCR. Viable F. solani spores were also found in soil samples harvested from Beijing city (samples 1 and 2) and Hebei Province (samples 6–8), which showed Ct values of 23.87 ± 0.27 to 26.75 ± 0.22, corresponding to approximately 1.56 × 105 to 1.88 × 104 spore g−1 (Table 5).
In the bioassays, cucumber plants in eight of 18 soil samples showed symptoms of root rot, and no symptoms were observed in other soil samples (Table 5). In the soil treatment containing 105~106 spore g−1 in Shandong Province, it was found that the incidence of cucumber root rot was more serious, and its DI > 55 (samples 3~5). The incidence of cucumber root rot was 32.67~35.33 in Beijing (samples 1~2). In addition, the incidence of cucumber root rot was light, and its DI was 14.67~16.00 in Hebei (samples 6~8). The other 10 soil samples showed no typical symptoms of cucumber root rot, and the Ct value amplified by PMA-qPCR was >35. Therefore, the PMA-qPCR method could be applied to detect the content of viable cells infected with F. solani in natural soil in different areas.

4. Discussion

The PMA-qPCR technology has been applied to the detection of plant pathogen cells [26,29,30]. Despite the fact that F. solani can be identified by qPCR, it has the disadvantage of being unable to distinguish between viable cells and dead cells in plant or soil. In this research, the quantitative detection method of PMA combined with qPCR is established for the first time, which can be used for the monitoring of naturally infected soil diseases and is of great significance for the early warning of crop soil-borne diseases.
In this research, the optimal PMA concentration and light exposure time are 50 mmol L−1 and 15 min, respectively, to distinguish between dead and viable F. solani spore. When the PMA concentration is 10 μg mL−1, exposed for 10 min, the amplification of Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola DNA can be inhibited [31]. Previous studies reported that PMA treatment is 3 μg mL−1 to inhibit the PCR amplification of DNA from Bacillus cereus dead cells [32]. It is reported that the preparation of 1 mg mL−1 PMA with an optimized volume of 10 µL and illumination for 5 min can effectively detect the content of viable cells of Escherichia coli [33]. In addition, there are many reports about optimizing the PMA system to detect soil pathogens [34,35]. Among the studies of soil-borne pathogens, there is inconsistency regarding the optimal PMA concentrations or light exposure times, which may be the target fungi.
The EF gene is a conserved gene of the Fusarium sequence, and the specific DNA sequence of Fusarium can be detected. The assay detected only DNA sequences specific to Fusarium sp. No signal is obtained for ten other fungal species (Figure 3A). However, it is not possible to distinguish between F. solani and Fusarium sp. using F8-1/F8-2 primers, but the ability to detect more than two Fusarium sp. may be an advantage in the diagnosis of soil borne diseases in the vegetable industry, because of their related mycotoxigenic profile. Previously, the primer sequences used to detect F. solani were derived from nuclear ribosomal RNA genes [36], but the EF marker has been demonstrated to be more specific for species discrimination [37].
In the test, using the established PMA-qPCR method, the limit of viable cells in artificially infected soil F. solani suspension is 91.24 spore. The PMA-qPCR assay demonstrated that the limit of detection (LOD) of the assay reached 102 CFU mL−1 of Staphylococcus aureus in spiked milk [38]. For the activity detection of Bacillus cereus in the food field, the detection limit of the PMA-qPCR method is 7.5 × 102 CFU mL−1 [39]. For Alternaria spp. in the vegetable industry, the LOD of detected by PMA-qPCR method is 102 spore g−1 of tomato [24]. In the bioassay, the infection level of soil with low incidence of cucumber root rot is 4.10 × 103 spore g−1, with a DI of 10.67. Typical symptoms of soil-transmitted cucumber root rot disease are found in soil samples at a degree of infection greater than 103 spore g−1. When the content of F. solani infection in soil is less than or equal to 103 spore g−1, cucumber plants grow healthily and do not suffer from root rot. In addition, the detection results of PMA-qPCR are agreement with those of traditional separation methods. Among the discrepancies, PMA-qPCR can detect 100 spores in the soil tested, but not plant-counting assays, which proves that the PMA-qPCR detection method demonstrates higher sensitivity and is better than the plant-counting method. The PMA-qPCR assay shows that eight of the 18 natural soil samples carried F. solani viable cells, indicating that it may lead to the occurrence of cucumber plant root rot in naturally infected soil.
In conclusion, this study presents a rapid, sensitive, and reliable tool for the quantitative detection of soil-borne viable Fusarium fungi, that can be applied to produce accurate and reliable data for risk assessments in vegetable health. The use of this assay will allow to carry out the preventive detection of soil before plant transplantation to field production. So far as we know, the application of the PMA-qPCR assay for the quantification of F. solani viable spores in naturally infected soil has not been described to date.

Author Contributions

L.C. performed experiments, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript; X.X. conceived and designed the research; L.L. and A.C. modified the manuscript; Y.S. review and editing; T.F. executed part of the experiments; J.X. and B.L. designed the research and modified the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was performed with the support of the The National Key Research and Development Program of China (2020YFD1000400); the Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia (2020BBF03022); Science and Technology Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS-ASTIP-IVFCAAS); the Key Laboratory of Horticultural Crops Genetic Improvement, Ministry of Agriculture in China (IVF2020); Special Fund for Technical System of Melon and Vegetable Industry of Gansu Province (GARS-GC-1).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all the researchers for providing different Fusarium strains and other test strains which used in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhou, X.; Liu, J.; Wu, F. Soil microbial communities in cucumber monoculture and rotation systems and their feedback effects on cucumber seedling growth. Plant Soil 2017, 415, 507–520. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kolattukudy, P.; Gamble, D. Nectria haematococca Pathogenesis and host specificity in plant diseases. In Pathogenesis and Host Specificity in Plant Pathogenic Fungi and Nematodes Volume 2; Kohmoto, K., Singh, U.S., Singh, R.P., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 1995; pp. 83–102. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, B.; Liu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Xie, X.; Guo, Y. First report of crown rot of grafted cucumber caused by Fusarium solani in China. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 1377. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Armengol, J.; José, C.; Moya, M.; Sales, R.; Vicent, A.; García-Jiménez, J. Fusarium solani f. sp. cucurbitae race 1, a potential pathogen of grafted watermelon production in Spain. EPPO Bull. 2000, 30, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schippers, B.; van Eck, W.H. Formation and survival of chlamydospores in Fusarium. In Fusarium: Disease, Biology, and Taxonomy; Nelson, P.E., Tousson, T.A., Cook, R.J., Eds.; Penn State University Press: University Park, PA, USA, 1981; pp. 250–260. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pastrana, A.; Ureba, M.J.; Aguado, A.; Capote, N. Potential inoculum sources and incidence of strawberry soilborne pathogens in Spain. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Costa, S.; Moreira, G.; Pfenning, L. Development of a PCR protocol for the identification and detection of Fusarium solani f. sp. piperis from soil and roots of black pepper (Piper nigrum). Trop. Plant Pathol. 2017, 42, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gao, X.; Jackson, T.; Lambert, K.; Li, S.; Hartman, G.; Niblack, T. Detection and quantification of Fusarium solani f. sp. glycines in soybean roots with real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 1372–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Zaniol, E.; Valentina, D.; Filomena, R.; Alliaudi, C.; Bergallo, M. Real time qPCR TaqMan method for detection of Fusarium solani. Minerva Biotecnol. 2020, 32, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Casasnovas, F.; Fantini, E.; Palazzini, J.; Giaj-Merlera, G.; Chulze, S.; Reynoso, M.; Torres, A. Development of amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP)-derived specific primer for the detection of Fusarium solani aetiological agent of peanut brown root rot. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 1782–1792. [Google Scholar]
  11. Elizaquível, P.; Aznar, R.; Sanchez, G. Recent developments in the use of viability dyes and quantitative PCR in the food microbiology field. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 116, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tavernier, S.; Coenye, T. Quantification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in multispecies biofilms using PMA-qPCR. Peer J. 2015, 3, e787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Nocker, A.; Camper., A. Selective removal of DNA from dead cells of mixed bacterial communities by use of ethidium monoazide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 1997–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Pan, Y.; Breidt, F. Enumeration of viable Listeria monocytogenes cells by real-time PCR with propidium monoazide and ethidium monoazide in the presence of dead cells. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2007, 73, 8028–8031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Cawthorn, D.; Witthuhn, R. Selective PCR detection of viable Enterobacter sakazakii cells utilizing propidium monoazide or ethidium bromide monoazide. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 105, 1178–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nocker, A.; Mazza, A.; Masson, L.; Camper, A.; Brousseau, R. Selective detection of live bacteria combining propidium monoazide sample treatment with microarray technology. J. Microbiol. Meth. 2009, 76, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Josefsen, M.; Löfström, C.; Hansen, T.; Christensen, L.; Olsen, J.; Hoorfar, J. Rapid quantification of viable Campylobacter bacteria on chicken carcasses, using real-time PCR and propidium monoazide treatment, as a tool for quantitative risk assessment. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2010, 76, 5097–5104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Elizaquível, P.; Sánchez, G.; Selma, M.; Aznar, R. Application of propidium monoazide-qPCR to evaluate the ultrasonic inactivation of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in fresh-cut vegetable wash water. Food Microbiol. 2012, 30, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhu, R.; Li, T.; Jia, Y.; Song, L. Quantitative study of viable Vibrio parahaemolyticus cells in raw seafood using propidium monoazide in combination with quantitative PCR. J. Microbiol. Meth. 2012, 90, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Meng, X.; Chai, A.; Chen, L.; Shi, Y.; Xie, X.; Ma, Z.; Li, B. Rapid detection and quantification of viable Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans cells in contaminated cucumber seeds using propidium monoazide and a real-time PCR assay. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 38, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, Y.; Zhong, Q.; Wang, J.; Lei, S. Enumeration of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in VBNC state by PMA-combined real-time quantitative PCR coupled with confirmation of respiratory activity. Food Control 2018, 91, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Laidlaw, A.; Gänzle, M.; Yang, X. Comparative assessment of qPCR enumeration methods that discriminate between live and dead Escherichia coli O157:H7 on beef. Food Microbiol. 2019, 79, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vesper, S.; McKinstry, C.; Hartmann, C.; Neace, M.; Yoder, S.; Vesper, A. Quantifying fungal viability in air and water samples using quantitative PCR after treatment with propidium monoazide (PMA). J. Microbiol. Meth. 2008, 72, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Crespo-Sempere, A.; Estiarte, N.; Marín, S.; Sanchis, V.; Ramos, A. Propidium monoazide combined with real-time quantitative PCR to quantify viable Alternaria spp. contamination in tomato products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 165, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Lee, S.; Taylor, J. Isolation of DNA from fungal mycelia and single spores. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications; Innis, M.A., Gelfand, D.H., Sninsky, T.J., White, T.J., Eds.; CABI: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 282–287. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chai, A.; Ben, H.; Shi, Y.; Xie, X.; Li, B. Quantification of viable cells of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in tomato seed using propidium monoazide and a real-time PCR assay. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Meng, X.; Qi, X.; Han, Z.; Guo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, T.; Wang, L.; Cao, K.; Wang, S. Latent infection of Valsamali in the seeds, seedlings and twigs of crab apple and apple trees is a potential inoculum source of Valsa canker. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Nocker, A.; Cheung, C.; Camper, A. Comparison of propidium monoazide with ethidium monoazide for differentiation of live vs. dead bacteria by selective removal of DNA from dead cells. J. Microbiol. Meth. 2006, 67, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Golpayegani, A.; Douraghi, M.; Rezaei, F.; Alimohammadi, M.; Nodehi, R. Propidium monoazide–quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PMA-qPCR) assay for rapid detection of viable and viable but non-culturable (VBNC) Pseudomonas aeruginosa in swimming pools. J. Environ. Health Sci. 2019, 17, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Dias, C.; Scariot, M.; Amboni, R.; Arisi, A. Application of propidium monoazide coupled with quantitative pcr to evaluate cell viability of bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis in a non-dairy probiotic beverage. Ann. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, X.; Wang, W.; Li, X.; Feng, L.; Qian, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wei, S. PMA-qPCR assay for the detection of viable Pseudomonas syringae pv. maculicola. Plant Quarantine 2021, 35, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhou, P.; Xie, G.; Liang, T.; Yu, B.; Aguilar, Z.; Xu, H. Rapid and quantitative detection of viable emetic Bacillus cereus by PMA-qPCR assay in milk. Mol. Cell. Probes 2019, 47, 101437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hussein, D.; Ghit, A. Detection of Viable But Non-Culturable (VBNC) Escherichia coli from Beef Liver using PMA-PCR Assay. Alex. J. Vet. Sci. 2021, 69, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  34. Han, S.; Jiang, N.; Lv, Q.; Kan, Y.; Hao, J.; Li, J.; Luo, L. Detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in viable but nonculturable state from tomato seed using improved qPCR. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Tian, Q.; Feng, J.; Hu, J.; Zhao, W. Selective detection of viable seed-borne Acidovorax citrulli by realtime PCR with propidium monoazide. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 35457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Muraosa, Y.; Schreiber, A.; Trabasso, P.; Matsuzawa, T.; Taguchi, H.; Moretti, M.; Mikami, Y.; Kamei, K. Development of cycling probe-based real-time PCR system to detect Fusarium species and Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC). Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 304, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. O’Donnell, K.; Sutton, D.; Rinaldi, M.; Sarver, B.; Balajee, S.; Schroers, H.; Summerbell, R.; Robert, V.; Crous, P.; Zhang, N.; et al. Internet-Accessible DNA sequence database for identifying Fusaria from human and animal infections. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 3708–3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Zi, C.; Zeng, D.; Ling, N.; Dai, J.; Xue, F.; Jiang, Y.; Li, B. An improved assay for rapid detection of viable Staphylococcus aureus cells by incorporating surfactant and PMA treatments in qPCR. BMC Microbiol. 2018, 18, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cattani, F.; Barth, V.; Nasario, J.; Ferreira, C.; Oliveira, S. Detection and quantification of viable Bacillus cereus group species in milk by propidium monoazide quantitative real-time PCR. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 2617–2624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Screening of conventional PCR primers for F. solani where M is a 100 bp DNA ladder; Lanes 1 to 15 are primers FS-1/FS-2, FS-3/FS-4, F1-1/F1-2, F1-3/F1-4, F8-1/F8-2, F8-3/F8-4, F1/F2, F3/F4, F5/F6, F7/F8, F9/F10, F11/F12, F13/F14, F15/F16, and F17/F18.
Figure 1. Screening of conventional PCR primers for F. solani where M is a 100 bp DNA ladder; Lanes 1 to 15 are primers FS-1/FS-2, FS-3/FS-4, F1-1/F1-2, F1-3/F1-4, F8-1/F8-2, F8-3/F8-4, F1/F2, F3/F4, F5/F6, F7/F8, F9/F10, F11/F12, F13/F14, F15/F16, and F17/F18.
Microorganisms 10 01037 g001
Figure 2. Multiple sequence alignment of the 189 bp EF gene region used as a qPCR target sequence for F. solani. (1) The F. solani strain with accession number MK077042.1; (2) the F. oxysporum strain with accession number MK863033.1; (3) the B. cinerea strain with accession number KF015587.1; (4) the P. capsici strain with accession number GQ862819.1; (5) the P. aphanidermatum strain with accession number AB160854.1; (6) the R. solani strain with accession number DQ369804.1; and (7) the S. sclerotiorum strain with accession number KT970793.1. The primer sequences are indicated (F8-1 is a forward complement and F8-2 is a reverse complement).
Figure 2. Multiple sequence alignment of the 189 bp EF gene region used as a qPCR target sequence for F. solani. (1) The F. solani strain with accession number MK077042.1; (2) the F. oxysporum strain with accession number MK863033.1; (3) the B. cinerea strain with accession number KF015587.1; (4) the P. capsici strain with accession number GQ862819.1; (5) the P. aphanidermatum strain with accession number AB160854.1; (6) the R. solani strain with accession number DQ369804.1; and (7) the S. sclerotiorum strain with accession number KT970793.1. The primer sequences are indicated (F8-1 is a forward complement and F8-2 is a reverse complement).
Microorganisms 10 01037 g002
Figure 3. Specific detection of primers F8-1/F8-2 where M is a 100 bp DNA ladder (A), and the melting curve of the qPCR for gradient dilution of the genomic DNA of F. solani (B). Lane 1 is F. solani, Lane 2 is F. oxysporum, Lane 3 is F. equiseti, Lane 4 is F. tricinctum, Lane 5 is F. avenaceum, Lane 6 is F. semitectum, Lane 7 is F. proliferatum, Lane 8 is F. acuminatum, Lane 9 is F. moniliforme, Lane 10 is P. aphanidermatum, Lane 11 is S. sclerotiorum, Lane 12 is P. infestans, Lane 13 is P. capsici, Lane 14 is B. cinerea, Lane 15 is S. solani, Lanes 16–18 are R. solani, Lane 19 is C. cassiicola, and Lane N is the ddH2O blank.
Figure 3. Specific detection of primers F8-1/F8-2 where M is a 100 bp DNA ladder (A), and the melting curve of the qPCR for gradient dilution of the genomic DNA of F. solani (B). Lane 1 is F. solani, Lane 2 is F. oxysporum, Lane 3 is F. equiseti, Lane 4 is F. tricinctum, Lane 5 is F. avenaceum, Lane 6 is F. semitectum, Lane 7 is F. proliferatum, Lane 8 is F. acuminatum, Lane 9 is F. moniliforme, Lane 10 is P. aphanidermatum, Lane 11 is S. sclerotiorum, Lane 12 is P. infestans, Lane 13 is P. capsici, Lane 14 is B. cinerea, Lane 15 is S. solani, Lanes 16–18 are R. solani, Lane 19 is C. cassiicola, and Lane N is the ddH2O blank.
Microorganisms 10 01037 g003
Figure 4. The standard curve (A) and amplification curve (B) of F. solani.
Figure 4. The standard curve (A) and amplification curve (B) of F. solani.
Microorganisms 10 01037 g004
Figure 5. Effects of propidium monoazide (PMA) concentrations (A) and light exposure time (B) on the amplification of DNA from viable and dead F. solani cells at 107 spores ml−1. Ct = cycle threshold. Columns labeled with different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Effects of propidium monoazide (PMA) concentrations (A) and light exposure time (B) on the amplification of DNA from viable and dead F. solani cells at 107 spores ml−1. Ct = cycle threshold. Columns labeled with different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Microorganisms 10 01037 g005
Table 1. Fungal strains for the primers specificity test.
Table 1. Fungal strains for the primers specificity test.
SpeciesIdentification MethodIsolate Code aHostGeographic OriginCt b
Fusarium solanimicroscopyHG15051822Cucumis sativusGansu18.37
Fusarium oxysporumHG17081402Cucumis sativusHenan19.69
Fusarium equisetiHG18042508Cucumis sativusShouguang24.42
Fusarium tricinctumWJ18081532Lactuca sativaGansu21.67
Fusarium avenaceumGL12052202Brassica oleraceaXizang20.89
Fusarium semitectumSG07121601Luffa cylindrical RoemShouguang25.45
Fusarium proliferatumHG1004510Cucumis sativusHebei23.50
Fusarium acuminatumLD1508081502OrobancheXinjiang25.88
Fusarium moniliformeHG10052001Cucumis sativusHebei26.52
Pythium aphanidermatumXG11012402Citrullus lanatusHainan>35.0
Sclerotinia sclerotiorumKJ16022218Sonchus oleraceusBeijing>35.0
Phytophthora infestansFQ09092001Lycopersicon esculentumGansu>35.0
Phytophthora capsiciLJ12010802Capsicum annuumHainan>35.0
Botrytis cinereaHG1603310804-1Cucumis sativusNingxia>35.0
Stemphylium solaniFQ14112206Lycopersicon esculentumBeijing>35.0
Rhizoctonia solaniKXC1512180122Ipomoea aquatica ForskFujian>35.0
Rhizoctonia solaniKXC151218030602Ipomoea aquatica ForskFujian>35.0
Rhizoctonia solaniKXC151218031211Ipomoea aquatica ForskFujian>35.0
Corynespora cassiicolaHG14061105Cucumis sativusBeijing>35.0
a, type strain. b, Ct value for 210 ng genomic DNA.
Table 2. Primers used for detecting F. solani.
Table 2. Primers used for detecting F. solani.
NumberPrimer NameSequence (5′-3′)Fragment Size (bp)
1FS-1GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA190
FS-2GCTCAGCGGCTTCCTATT
2FS-3GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA188
FS-4TCAGCGGCTTCCTATTGT
3F1-1GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA185
F1-2GCGGCTTCCTATTGTTG
4F1-3GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA191
F1-4AGCTCAGCGGCTTCCTA
5F8-1GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA189
F8-2GCTCAGCGGCTTCCTAT
6F8-3GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA165
F8-4CGGTTAGCGTCTGTTGTG
7F1GCCTTGCTATTCCACATCG240
F2GCTCAGCGGCTTCCTATT
8F3GCGCCTTGCTATTCCAC240
F4TCAGCGGCTTCCTATTGT
9F5GAACCTCGCCTGGCATCT218
F6TGGGACTCGGGAGAAGC
10F7GCCTTGCTATTCCACATCG238
F8TCAGCGGCTTCCTATTGT
11F9GCCTTGCTATTCCACATCG241
F10AGCTCAGCGGCTTCCTA
12F11GCCTTGCTATTCCACATCG152
F12GCAGGGATCAGGGCTTT
13F13GTTGGACAAAGCCCTGAT131
F14TTGAAGGAACCCTTACCG
14F15GCTTCTCCCGAGTCCCA165
F16CGGTTAGCGTCTGTTGTG
15F17GTTGGACAAAGCCCTGAT235
F18TGACGGTGACATAGTAGCG
Table 3. Comparison of total and viable F. solani spore counts obtained by different methods a.
Table 3. Comparison of total and viable F. solani spore counts obtained by different methods a.
Ratio bqPCRPMA-qPCRColony Counting
Ct ValuesTotal Spore CountsCt ValuesViable Spore CountsViable Spore Counts
100%15.01 ± 0.538.01 ± 0.16 a15.45 ± 0.457.87 ± 0.14 a7.03 ± 6.98 a
75%15.89 ± 0.117.73 ± 0.03 a19.06 ± 0.126.72 ± 0.04 b6.78 ± 1.41 b
50%14.30 ± 0.378.24 ± 0.12 a21.17 ± 0.366.05 ± 0.12 c6.56 ± 3.68 b
25%14.69 ± 0.938.12 ± 0.30 a23.37 ± 0.505.35 ± 0.16 d6.27 ± 1.25 bc
1%15.32 ± 0.167.92 ± 0.05 a25.85 ± 0.134.56 ± 0.04 e5.43 ± 1.25 d
0.1%15.08 ± 0.587.99 ± 0.19 a29.09 ± 0.183.53 ± 0.06 f4.82 ± 0.47 e
a The total spore concentration (including viable and dead cells) was 1 × 107 spores mL. Total and viable spore counts are shown at log spores per milliliter. b Ratio of viable spores. Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Determination of viable cells in soil samples artificially infected with F. solani by different methods a.
Table 4. Determination of viable cells in soil samples artificially infected with F. solani by different methods a.
Infected (Spore mL−1)PMA-qPCRPlate-CountingBioassay
Ct ValuesViable Spore CountsViable Spore CountsDI (%)
1 × 107 viable spores18.45 ± 0.448.77 × 1069.13 × 10692.67 ± 2.62
1 × 106 viable spores21.38 ± 0.761.13 × 1067.53 × 10676.00 ± 2.45
1 × 105 viable spores23.72 ± 0.221.76 × 1056.67 × 10547.33 ± 1.25
1 × 104 viable spores27.07 ± 0.601.62 × 1041.33 × 10510.67 ± 1.25
1 × 103 viable spores31.24 ± 0.457.36 × 1026.67 × 1040.00
1 × 102 viable spores34.06 ± 0.3691.240.000.00
10 viable spores>35Not available0.000.00
107 dead spores>35Not available0.000.00
0>35Not available0.000.00
a Viable spore counts are shown as spores per gram of soil. Not available means the F. solani spore counts were zero or below the detection limit.
Table 5. Detection of viable F. solani in naturally contaminated cucumber soil.
Table 5. Detection of viable F. solani in naturally contaminated cucumber soil.
SampleLocationYearPMA-qPCRBioassay
Ct ValuesViable Spore CountsDI (%)
1Beijing201924.52 ± 0.249.65 × 10432.67 ± 2.49
2Beijing201923.87 ± 0.271.56 × 10535.33 ± 1.70
3Shandong202018.25 ± 0.309.60 × 10668.67 ± 3.40
4Shandong202020.15 ± 0.342.38 × 10658.67 ± 1.25
5Shandong202021.38 ± 0.279.66 × 10556.67 ± 2.49
6Hebei202026.75 ± 0.221.88 × 10415.33 ± 1.70
7Hebei202026.12 ± 0.212.99 × 10414.67 ± 3.30
8Hebei202024.78 ± 0.207.98 × 10416.00 ± 3.74
9Beijing2019>35Not available0.00
10Beijing2019>35Not available0.00
11Beijing2019>35Not available0.00
12Beijing2019>35Not available0.00
13Beijing2019>35Not available0.00
14Shandong2020>35Not available0.00
15Shandong2020>35Not available0.00
16Shandong2020>35Not available0.00
17Hebei2020>35Not available0.00
18Hebei2020>35Not available0.00
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, L.; Li, L.; Xie, X.; Chai, A.; Shi, Y.; Fan, T.; Xie, J.; Li, B. An Improved Method for Quantification of Viable Fusarium Cells in Infected Soil Products by Propidium Monoazide Coupled with Real-Time PCR. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1037. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10051037

AMA Style

Chen L, Li L, Xie X, Chai A, Shi Y, Fan T, Xie J, Li B. An Improved Method for Quantification of Viable Fusarium Cells in Infected Soil Products by Propidium Monoazide Coupled with Real-Time PCR. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(5):1037. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10051037

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Lida, Lei Li, Xuewen Xie, Ali Chai, Yanxia Shi, Tengfei Fan, Jianming Xie, and Baoju Li. 2022. "An Improved Method for Quantification of Viable Fusarium Cells in Infected Soil Products by Propidium Monoazide Coupled with Real-Time PCR" Microorganisms 10, no. 5: 1037. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10051037

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop