TABLE 3.
Comparison of quantitative PCR, the FISH method with specific probes, and the culture method for detection and quantification of bifidobacteria in fecal samples from six subjects
| Population | Log10 bifidobacteria/g of feces (wet weight)a for indicated volunteerb
|
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
F
|
|||||||||||||
| qPCRc | FISHd | CFU | qPCR | FISH | CFU | qPCR | FISH | CFU | qPCR | FISH | CFU | qPCR | FISH | CFU | qPCR | FISH | CFU | |
| Bifidobacterium | 10.0 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 10.4 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 9.2 | 6.9 | − | 7.8 |
| B. adolescentis group | 10.0 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 10.1 | 10.6 | 10.1 | 9.5 | 10.3 | 9.9 | 9.5 | 8.8 | 8.0 | 9.0 | − | − | − |
| B. bifidum | − | − | − | − | − | − | 9.1 | 8.9 | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| B. catenulatum group | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 9.2 | 9.6 | 9.1 | − | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.8 | 8.0 | 8.7 | − | − | − |
| B. longum | 7.4 | − | − | 9.4 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 9.4 | 9.5 | − | 8.1 | 9.4 | 8.0 | 8.4 | 8.3 | 8.0 | 7.0 | − | 7.8 |
| B. breve | 7.9 | NT | 8.6 | − | NT | − | 8.4 | NT | − | − | NT | − | − | NT | − | − | NT | − |
| B. angulatum | − | NT | − | − | NT | − | − | NT | − | 6.9 | NT | − | 6.5 | NT | − | − | NT | − |
a
−, not detected; NT, not tested.
b
Fecal samples collected at the fifth month were used for comparison.
c
PCR, quantitative PCR. The detection limit of the quantitative PCR was 106 cells per g of feces.
d
The detection limit of the FISH was 108 cells per g of feces.