Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 23;10(2):e0116705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116705

Table 4. Comparison of data from sequencing and qPCR for eleven infant fecal samples.

Sequencing results* qPCR results by primer*
Sample Mean reads StDev Reads Mean Shannon StDev Shannon C. albicans C. parapsilosis C. tropicalis C. krusei Uni Calb Cpar Ckru
17 2259 2133 2.25 0.16 +++ +++ −−− +++ +++ +++ +++ +
21 282972 351107 0.79 0.22 +++ +++ ++− +++ +++ +++ +−−
24 1764 1917 1.57 0.74 +++ ++− +−− ++− +++ +−− −− −−
25 2087 3443 1.76 0.82 +++ ++− −−− −−− +++ ++− −− −−
27 338 452 1.72 0.20 +++ ++− −−− +−− +++ +++ −−
28 2248 2509 2.19 0.18 +++ +++ +−− −−− +++ +++ −−
30 1911 1728 2.03 0.11 +++ +++ ++− −−− +++ ++− −−
31 2406 1616 1.80 0.26 +++ ++− +−− −−− +++ +−− −−
32 3016 3651 1.81 0.40 +++ +++ −−− ++− ++− +++ −−
34 3009 2204 1.78 0.38 +++ ++− −−− +−− +++ ++− −−
35 1078 988 1.55 0.55 +++ ++− −−− +−− +++ ++− −−

* +, positive qPCR signal (above the LoD) in one replicate sample;-, no qPCR signal (below the LoD). As shown, most determinations were performed in triplicate; some determinations were done in duplicate or singly due to lack of template material.