The uidA gene, which encodes for β-D-glucuronidase, has been utilized in numerous studies to confirm the presence of
E. coli in samples (
25). In this study, we employed the uidA gene for primary screening of
E. coli in the samples. Additionally, we utilized PMA with qPCR to differentiate between dead and live cells. The standard method for identifying
E. coli is the culture method, which necessitates several days of incubation. However, using qPCR can significantly reduce this time to just a few hours.
Exposure to the environment stress, high temperatures, competition with other bacteria, and chemical factors can damage bacteria. This damage has the power to kill bacteria such that they cannot be distinguished from live bacteria when examined using molecular methods (
26). This issue is important in the sense that each bacterium must reach its infectious dose to cause disease. Given that free DNAs may exist in the sample and they do not necessarily cause the disease, they should be removed from the diagnosis process. Therefore, the issue of how many live and active bacteria are present in a sample is very important. Environmental stress can induce damage to the bacterial membrane, which subsequently permits the influx of PMA into the bacterial cell. In contrast, live bacteria possess an intact cytoplasmic membrane, which prevents the penetration of this chemical substance, rendering it exclusive to dead bacterial cells (
13,
27).
The concentration of PMA used in various studies varies depending on the sample concentration (
28,
29). In the event that the dilution process is appropriately carried out and the sample is not excessively concentrated, a predetermined quantity of PMA can be employed to treat the sample. In this study, the sensitivity and accuracy of the method were repeatable and reliable in the prepared dilution. The amount of PMA used in this study remained constant at all dilutions.
The detection of
E. coli as a major pathogen in children holds immense significance. This bacterium can become more aggressive by acquiring virulence genes. However, given that the infectious dose required to cause disease ranges from 10
6 to 10
10 bacteria, it is crucial to precisely determine this quantity in order to accurately predict the pathogenicity of this bacterium (
30,
31). In addition to this, bacteria can enter the viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state, which cannot be detected using the culture method (
32). Previous research has indicated that chronic infection can persist despite antibiotic use and negative culture results due to the presence of VBNC bacteria (
33). These findings highlight the limitations of culture techniques and the need for more advanced molecular techniques, which offer greater sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (
34,
35). While some studies continue to advocate for the culture approach, many confirm the precision and effectiveness of the PCR method. Moreover, the culture method may not be able to identify pathogens in the presence of antibiotics or low pathogen concentrations. Real-time PCR can detect both the genus and species of bacteria and provide a precise quantification, while the culture method only detects the genus, and further biochemical and sugar fermentation studies are required for species identification, leading to longer turnaround times (
33,
34). To reliably detect a signal, a sufficient concentration of DNA is necessary, and the limit of detection indicates the lowest DNA concentration that can be reliably distinguished from a blank sample (
35). The sensitivity of a test reflects its ability to correctly identify a patient, with higher sensitivity leading to a lower false negative rate and better identification of disease cases (
36).
One problem with using PMA in a dense sample like feces is that the presence of organic matter, dead bacteria, undigested food, and other materials can interfere with PMA penetration. One way to solve this problem is to dilute the sample, which reduces the concentration of target organisms. According to these cases, one strategy to solve this problem is to use a high concentration of PMA in the dense samples (
29,
36). However, using serial dilution, high concentrations of PMA, and investigation of all dilutions in this study allowed the sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility of this method to be investigated. All the dilutions were tested, and the results were reproducible. In another research study, the DNA gradient method was found to produce similar results to the culture method, but in a shorter time period (
37). Zhong et al. as cited by Pan et al. used PMA and PCR to investigate the presence of VBNC, which is comparable to the present study in that only DNA from living bacteria is examined (
38). However, since qPCR was not used in this study, the amount of primary DNA could not be determined. Moreover, this study did not investigate the efficacy of PMA or conduct its examination in a controlled manner, as was successfully done in the current study (
38). Yuan et al. investigated the presence of live
E. coli in water samples using PMA and qPCR (
39). In this study, environmental water samples showed 10
2 CFU/mL in the sample. This method can effectively identify living bacteria originating from feces in less time since the minimum detection limit is similar to the culture method and does not exhibit much difference. However, due to the different sample used in this study, a concentration of 5 M of PMA was used instead of the amount used in the current investigation (
39).
The Lee et al. study utilized the uidA gene for diagnosis, whereas in the current study, the same gene was utilized for initial screening (
40). With the assistance of a specific primer, the bacterial pathotype was accurately identified. Another distinction is that Lee et al. employed a qualitative method based on PCR, whereas the present study utilized qPCR, a quantitative method that enables the estimation of the bacterial count in the sample (
40).
In short, this method offers two key advantages. Firstly, it is faster than the culture method and can identify the genus and species of bacteria. Secondly, it outperforms qPCR alone as the use of PMA allows for the exclusion of DNA from dead bacteria, enabling the identification of only living bacteria.
5.1. Conclusions
In this study, the diagnostic power of the real-time method alone and in combination with PMA was investigated. During this study, PMA was used in combination with living cells, living and dead cells, and only dead cells to determine the effectiveness of this combination. As a result, no signal was detected in dead cells by using PMA + qPCR. However, when dead and live cells were combined with (dead + live + PMA + qPCR), only the number of live cells was identified, indicating the successful differentiation of PMA.
The traditional method of identifying bacterial pathogens in diarrheal disease involves microbial culture, which is time-consuming and can be affected by growth-inhibiting factors such as antibiotics. However, the present study aimed to improve the accuracy and speed of diagnosis by using the qPCR method in combination with PMA. By selectively identifying and counting only living bacteria, the accuracy of the method was increased. This approach is particularly useful for accurately identifying the amount of live pathogenic bacteria, which can aid in both initial diagnosis and monitoring the effectiveness of treatment.
Using E. coli pathotype primer facilitates conducting a specific diagnosis quickly and accurately. Furthermore, the exact number of bacteria can be determined if PMA is used in conjunction with the above approach. This finding is helpful for studies that examine the effect of treatment.
In conclusion, this method enjoys two advantages: (1) Higher speed than the culture method; and (2) the ability to identify the genus and species of bacteria. The second advantage of this method compared to the application of qPCR alone is that PMA can remove DNA from dead bacteria, helping to identify live bacteria.