Here we report on the first assessment of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for detection and absolute quantification of two quarantine plant pathogenic bacteria that infect many species of the Rosaceae and Solanaceae families: Erwinia amylovora and Ralstonia solanacearum. An open-source R script was written for the ddPCR data analysis. Analysis of a set of samples with known health status aided the assessment and selection of different threshold settings (QuantaSoft analysis, definetherain pipeline and manual threshold), which led to optimal diagnostic specificity. The interpretation of the E. amylovora ddPCR was straightforward, and the analysis approach had little influence on the final results and the concentrations determined. The sensitivity and linear range were similar to those for real-time PCR (qPCR), for the analysis of both bacterial suspensions and plant material, making ddPCR a viable choice when both detection and quantification are desired. With the R. solanacearum ddPCR, the use of a high global threshold was necessary to exclude false-positive reactions that are sometimes observed in healthy plant material. ddPCR significantly improved the analytical sensitivity over that of qPCR, and improved the detection of low concentrations of R. solanacearum in potato tuber samples. Accurate and rapid absolute quantification of both of these bacteria in pure culture was achieved by direct ddPCR. Our data confirm the suitability of these ddPCR assays for routine detection and quantification of plant pathogens and for preparation of defined in-house reference materials with known target concentrations.

Accurate and precise nucleic-acid quantification is crucial for clinical and diagnostic decisions, as overestimation or underestimation can lead to misguided treatment of a disease or incorrect labelling of the products. Digital PCR is one of the best tools for absolute nucleic-acid copy-number determination. However, digital PCR needs to be well characterised in terms of accuracy and sources of uncertainty. With droplet digital PCR, discrepancies between the droplet volume assigned by the manufacturer and measured by independent laboratories have already been shown in previous studies. In the present study, we report on the results of an inter-laboratory comparison of different methods for droplet volume determination that is based on optical microscopy imaging and is traceable to the International System of Units. This comparison was conducted on the same DNA material, with the examination of the influence of parameters such as droplet generators, supermixes, operators, inter-cartridge and intra-cartridge variability, and droplet measuring protocol. The mean droplet volume was measured using a QX200™ AutoDG™ Droplet Digital™ PCR system and two QX100™ Droplet Digital™ PCR systems. The data show significant volume differences between these two systems, as well as significant differences in volume when different supermixes are used. We also show that both of these droplet generator systems produce droplets with significantly lower droplet volumes (13.1%, 15.9%, respectively) than stated by the manufacturer and previously measured by other laboratories. This indicates that to ensure precise quantification, the droplet volumes should be assessed for each system.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00216-017-0625-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Digital PCR (dPCR) is beginning to supersede real-time PCR (qPCR) for quantification of nucleic acids in many different applications. Several analytical properties of the two most commonly used dPCR platforms, namely the QX100 system (Bio-Rad) and the 12.765 array of the Biomark system (Fluidigm), have already been evaluated and compared with those of qPCR. However, to the best of our knowledge, direct comparison between the three of these platforms using the same DNA material has not been done, and the 37 K array on the Biomark system has also not been evaluated in terms of linearity, analytical sensitivity and limit of quantification. Here, a first assessment of qPCR, the QX100 system and both arrays of the Biomark system was performed with plasmid and genomic DNA from human cytomegalovirus. With use of PCR components that alter the efficiency of qPCR, each dPCR platform demonstrated consistent copy-number estimations, which indicates the high resilience of dPCR. Two approaches, one considering the total reaction volume and the other considering the effective reaction size, were used to assess linearity, analytical sensitivity and variability. When the total reaction volume was considered, the best performance was observed with qPCR, followed by the QX100 system and the Biomark system. In contrast, when the effective reaction size was considered, all three platforms showed almost equal limits of detection and variability. Although dPCR might not always be more appropriate than qPCR for quantification of low copy numbers, dPCR is a suitable method for robust and reproducible quantification of viral DNA, and a promising technology for the higher-order reference measurement method.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00216-015-9107-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.