Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 14, 2026

A Duplex Digital PCR Assay for Simultaneous Quantification of the Enterococcus spp. and the Human Fecal-associated HF183 Marker in Waters
Published on: March 9, 2016
Application of Reverse Transcriptase -PCR (RT-PCR) for rapid detection of viable Escherichia coli in drinking water
Neda Molaee1, Hamid Abtahi2, Mohammad Javad Ghannadzadeh3
1Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Arak University of Medical sciences, Arak, Iran.
Background:
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is preferred to other methods for detecting Escherichia coli (E. coli) in water in terms of speed, accuracy and efficiency. False positive result is considered as the major disadvantages of PCR. For this reason, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can be used to solve this problem. The aim of present study was to determine the efficiency of RT-PCR for rapid detection of viable Escherichia coli in drinking water samples and enhance its sensitivity through application of different filter membranes.
Materials And Methods:
Specific primers were designed for 16S rRNA and elongation Factor II genes. Different concentrations of bacteria were passed through FHLP and HAWP filters. Then, RT-PCR was performed using 16srRNA and EF -Tu primers. Contamination of 10 wells was determined by RT-PCR in Arak city. To evaluate RT-PCR efficiency, the results were compared with most probable number (MPN) method.
Results:
RT-PCR is able to detect bacteria in different concentrations. Application of EF II primers reduced false positive results compared to 16S rRNA primers. The FHLP hydrophobic filters have higher ability to absorb bacteria compared with HAWB hydrophilic filters. So the use of hydrophobic filters will increase the sensitivity of RT-PCR.
Conclusion:
RT-PCR shows a higher sensitivity compared to conventional water contamination detection method. Unlike PCR, RT-PCR does not lead to false positive results. The use of EF-Tu primers can reduce the incidence of false positive results. Furthermore, hydrophobic filters have a higher ability to absorb bacteria compared to hydrophilic filters.
More Related Videos
12:32EPA Method 1615. Measurement of Enterovirus and Norovirus Occurrence in Water by Culture and RT-qPCR. Part III. Virus Detection by RT-qPCR
Published on: January 16, 2016
12:50Colorimetric Paper-based Detection of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes from Large Volumes of Agricultural Water
Published on: June 9, 2014