Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 28;12(9):e0185427. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185427

Table 4. Detection of Xylella by TaqMan quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and conventional PCR (cPCR) with different probes and primers.

qPCR with XrD-Pf/XrDf1 and qPCR-Hpc qPCR-L cPCR with
Species Strain D-XrDr2 XrDr2 D-XrDr9 RST31/33 XF1/6 X.fas-0838S/1439A XrDf1/D-XrDr2
X. fastidiosa subsp. fastidiosa ALS-BC 10.6 ± 0.1a 21.1 ± 0.1**/ 10.5b 9.5 ± 0.0**/ -1.1 nt 13.9 ± 0.1**/ 3.3 nt/ nt nt/ nt nt/ nt +/ nt
ELM-1 12.7 ± 0.0 12.6 ± 0.1 12.9 ± 0.0**/ 0.2 13.8 ± 0.1**/ 1.1 13.5 ± 0.0**/ 0.8 +/ ntd +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt
PCE-RR 19.7 ± 0.1 19.4 ± 0.2 19.8 ± 0.1 19.8 ± 0.0 19.8 ± 0.0 +/ + +/ + +/ nt +/ +
PD5-2 23.8 ± 0.0 24.0 ± 0.1*/ 0.2 24.7 ± 0.0**/ 0.9 24.6 ± 0.1**/ 0.9 24.6 ± 0.0**/ 0.9 +/ + +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt
OAK 15.0 ± 0.1 nt 15.0 ± 0.1 15.5 ± 0.1*/ 0.5 15.4 ± 0.2 +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt
Ann 1 13.9 ± 0.1 nt 14.0 ± 0.1 14.9 ± 0.1**/ 1.0 14.4 ± 0.1*/ 0.6 +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt
        subsp. multiplex PLM G83 13.7 ± 0.0 13.8 ± 0.1 14.2 ± 0.0**/ 0.5 14.6 ± 0.1**/ 1.0 14.2 ± 0.1**/ 0.6 +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt +/ nt
        subsp. pauca 9a5c 11.1 ± 0.0 11.4 ± 0.0**/ 0.3 11.3 ± 0.1 nt 9.6 ± 0.0**/ -1.5 nt/ nt nt/ nt nt/ nt +/ nt
CM1 17.3 ± 0.1 21.1 ± 0.1**/ 3.8 14.7 ± 0.0**/ -2.6 nt 10.4 ± 0.0**/ -6.9 nt/ nt nt/ nt nt/ nt +/ nt
Xfp01 21.0 ± 0.1 21.1 ± 0.1 20.9 ± 0.0 20.9 ± 0.2 20.8 ± 0.1 +/ + +/ nt +/ nt +/ +
X. taiwanensis PLS235 24.4 ± 0.1 17.8 ± 0.1**/ -6.6 20.0 ± 0.1**/ -4.4 (50 ± 0.0)**/ 25.6 (40.0 ± 0.4)**/ 15.7 –/ – –/ – +/ nt +/ nt
(Other bacteria)
B. gladioli BRA 1 (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) nt/ nt nt/ nt –/ nt nt/ –
B. gladioli pv. gladioli AZ 87108 (48.7 ± 1.3) nt (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) nt/ nt nt/ nt –/ nt nt/ –
E. coli BL21(DE3) pLysS (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) nt/ nt nt/ nt –/ nt nt/ –
R. pickettii C-176 (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) nt/ nt nt/ nt –/ nt nt/ –
S. maltophilia K-14 (6I11) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) 38.5 ± 0.7**/ -11.5 nt/ nt nt/ nt +/ nt nt/ –
X. albilineans T161 (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) 15.8 ± 0.0**/ -34.2 nt/ nt nt /nt +/ nt nt/ –
X. arboricola C1 (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (42.2 ± 7.8) (50.0 ± 0.0) 37.6 ± 0.3**/ -12.4 –/ nt –/ nt +/ nt nt/ –
X. campestris pv. citri N6101 (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (46.1 ± 3.5) –/ – –/ – +/ nt nt/ –
X. oryzae pv. oryzae H-9101 (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) (50.0 ± 0.0) 38.9 ± 1.3**/ -11.1 nt/ nt nt/ nt +/ nt nt/ –
Diagnostic sensitivity (%) 100 100 100 87.5 97
Diagnostic specificity (%) 100 100 96.3 100 55.6

a Mean ± standard error (n = 3) of the threshold cycle (Ct) values at an arbitrary threshold of 0.02. Undetermined Ct values within 50 cycles were temporarily calculated as 50; nt: not tested. Mean values over 40 in parentheses were considered negatives.

b A Student’s t-test was performed to compare the Ct values with those of`the qPCR with XrD-Pf/XrDf1/D-XrDr2. The same DNA preparations were used for evaluating the assays. Significant values are shown as: * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01. Significantly superior and inferior Ct values are highlighted in orange and gray, respectively, indicating differences in the values after slashes.

c qPCR-Hp and qPCR-L: qPCR assays of Harper et al. [13] and Li et al. [14], respectively.

d +: positive,–: negative at 35/ 43 cycles.