Next Article in Journal
AAU-Specific RNA Cleavage Mediated by MazF Toxin Endoribonuclease Conserved in Nitrosomonas europaea
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Impact of Mild Steaming and Heat Treatment on the Concentration of Okadaic Acid, Dinophysistoxin-2 and Dinophysistoxin-3 in Mussels
Previous Article in Journal
An Overview of Helicobacter pylori VacA Toxin Biology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Docking Simulation of the Binding Interactions of Saxitoxin Analogs Produced by the Marine Dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum to the Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel Nav1.4
Review

Is qPCR a Reliable Indicator of Cyanotoxin Risk in Freshwater?

Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21949-902, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Luis M. Botana
Toxins 2016, 8(6), 172; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8060172
Received: 11 April 2016 / Revised: 23 May 2016 / Accepted: 24 May 2016 / Published: 7 June 2016
(This article belongs to the Collection Marine and Freshwater Toxins)
The wide distribution of cyanobacteria in aquatic environments leads to the risk of water contamination by cyanotoxins, which generate environmental and public health issues. Measurements of cell densities or pigment contents allow both the early detection of cellular growth and bloom monitoring, but these methods are not sufficiently accurate to predict actual cyanobacterial risk. To quantify cyanotoxins, analytical methods are considered the gold standards, but they are laborious, expensive, time-consuming and available in a limited number of laboratories. In cyanobacterial species with toxic potential, cyanotoxin production is restricted to some strains, and blooms can contain varying proportions of both toxic and non-toxic cells, which are morphologically indistinguishable. The sequencing of cyanobacterial genomes led to the description of gene clusters responsible for cyanotoxin production, which paved the way for the use of these genes as targets for PCR and then quantitative PCR (qPCR). Thus, the quantification of cyanotoxin genes appeared as a new method for estimating the potential toxicity of blooms. This raises a question concerning whether qPCR-based methods would be a reliable indicator of toxin concentration in the environment. Here, we review studies that report the parallel detection of microcystin genes and microcystin concentrations in natural populations and also a smaller number of studies dedicated to cylindrospermopsin and saxitoxin. We discuss the possible issues associated with the contradictory findings reported to date, present methodological limitations and consider the use of qPCR as an indicator of cyanotoxin risk. View Full-Text
Keywords: cyanobacteria; microcystin; saxitoxin; cylindrospermopsin; bloom cyanobacteria; microcystin; saxitoxin; cylindrospermopsin; bloom
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Pacheco, A.B.F.; Guedes, I.A.; Azevedo, S.M.F.O. Is qPCR a Reliable Indicator of Cyanotoxin Risk in Freshwater? Toxins 2016, 8, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8060172

AMA Style

Pacheco ABF, Guedes IA, Azevedo SMFO. Is qPCR a Reliable Indicator of Cyanotoxin Risk in Freshwater? Toxins. 2016; 8(6):172. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8060172

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pacheco, Ana B.F., Iame A. Guedes, and Sandra M.F.O. Azevedo. 2016. "Is qPCR a Reliable Indicator of Cyanotoxin Risk in Freshwater?" Toxins 8, no. 6: 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins8060172

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop