Claim · model-written summary
dPCR sensitivity was inferior to qPCR for Fp.
Avena sativaNot reportedMaterialCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, when comparing assay sensitivity using both fungal and field oat DNA extracts, dPCR assays were superior to qPCR for Tri5 , Fl , and Fs , but the converse was true for Fp .”
t0“oats”
Title
Subramani Natarajan; Diana Bucur; Steven Kildea; et al. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2025. doi:10.1007/s00216-025-05840-0
Other claims from this paper (16)
- Method / resource The F. poae rDNA assay was less reliable for quantification than the other assays.
- Method / resource Optimized dPCR assays had linearity of R2 = 0.99.
- Method / resource dPCR assays were more resilient than qPCR to varied oat DNA concentration.
- Method / resource dPCR sensitivity was superior to qPCR for Tri5.
- Method / resource dPCR sensitivity was superior to qPCR for Fl.
- Method / resource dPCR sensitivity was superior to qPCR for Fs.
- Method / resource Field sample qPCR and dPCR agreement for Tri5 was κ = 0.5.
- Method / resource Field sample qPCR and dPCR agreement for Fl was 0.86.
- Method / resource Field sample qPCR and dPCR agreement for Fp was κ = 0.00.
- Method / resource The methods had strong correlations for Tri5, Fl and Fp.
- Method / resource qPCR did not detect Fs in field samples, unlike dPCR.
- Method / resource The authors conclude that dPCR for Tri5 reliably quantifies the pathogen.
- Method / resource The authors conclude that dPCR for Fl reliably quantifies the pathogen.
- Method / resource The authors conclude that dPCR for Fs reliably quantifies the pathogen.
- Method / resource The authors conclude that Fp dPCR reliably detects fungus.
- Method / resource The authors conclude that Fp dPCR is less reliable for pathogen quantification in field samples.