
==== Front
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol
jimb
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
1367-5435
1476-5535
Oxford University Press

39165127
10.1093/jimb/kuae030
kuae030
Original Paper
Genetics and Molecular Biology of Industrial Organisms
Jimb/6
AcademicSubjects/SCI01150
AcademicSubjects/SCI00540
Performance evaluation of a low-throughput qPCR-based Legionella assay for utility as an onsite industrial water system monitoring method
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8030-3508
Corrigan Alexsandra ChemTreat, 10041 Lickinghole Road, Ashland, VA 23005, USA

Niemaseck Benjamin ChemTreat, 10041 Lickinghole Road, Ashland, VA 23005, USA

Moore Mackenzie ChemTreat, 10041 Lickinghole Road, Ashland, VA 23005, USA

McIlwaine Douglas ChemTreat, 10041 Lickinghole Road, Ashland, VA 23005, USA

Duguay Jeremy LuminUltra Technologies Ltd., 819 Royal Road, Building B, Fredericton, NB E3G 6M1, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to: Alexsandra Corrigan, E-mail: alexsandra.corrigan@chemtreat.com
2024
20 8 2024
20 8 2024
51 kuae03010 5 2024
19 8 2024
11 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Society of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

Abstract

 

Legionella is a bacterial genus found in natural aquatic environments, as well as domestic and industrial water systems. Legionella presents potential human health risks when aerosolized and inhaled by at-risk individuals and is commonly monitored at locations with likelihood of proliferation and human exposure. Legionella monitoring is widely performed using culture-based testing, which faces limitations including turnaround time and interferences. Molecular biology methodologies, including quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), are being explored to supplement or replace culture-based testing because of faster turnaround and lower detection limits, allowing for more rapid water remediation measures. In this study, three methods were compared by testing industrial water samples: culture-based testing by a certified lab, high throughput qPCR testing (HT qPCR), and field deployable low throughput qPCR testing (LT qPCR). The qPCR test methods reported more positive results than culture testing, indicating improved sensitivity and specificity. The LT qPCR test is portable with quick turnaround times, and can be leveraged for environmental surveillance, process optimization, monitoring, and onsite case investigations. The LT qPCR test had high negative predictive value and would be a useful tool for negative screening of Legionella samples from high-risk environments and/or outbreak investigations to streamline samples for culture testing.

One-Sentence Summary

This study compared three test methods for Legionella to evaluate performance of a low throughput quantitative polymerase chain reaction (LT qPCR) test for Legionella that can be used onsite; the study found that the high throughput (HT) and LT qPCR tests used in this study gave more positive results than culture testing, and the results indicated a similar negative predictive value for the HT and LT qPCR tests, supporting that the LT qPCR method could be useful for negative screening of Legionella samples in industrial water systems onsite.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract

Legionella testing
qPCR
Industrial water samples
Routine monitoring
High-throughput Legionella qPCR test
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Legionella is a genus of bacteria found at low populations across aquatic environments, commonly in relationship with protozoan hosts (Berjeaud et al., 2016; Collins et al., 2015). At least 24 species of Legionella have been found to cause illness (legionellosis) in humans (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015). Exposure occurs through inhalation of aerosolized bacteria from a water source containing populations of Legionella, which may cause respiratory illness in individuals with various risk factors (Llewellyn et al., 2017; Young et al., 2021), including advanced age, compromised immune function, smoking and chronic lung disease, and underlying disease states (Collins et al., 2015; Llewellyn et al., 2017).

Legionella often proliferate in man-made water systems such as domestic, institutional, and industrial water systems (Berjeaud et al., 2016; Díaz-Flores et al., 2015). In natural water sources, the bacteria pose little threat to humans as nutrient levels and temperatures are generally too low to support high populations (Percival & Williams, 2014). However, in the built environment, Legionella populations can grow to higher population densities with greater potential for exposure and illness (Llewellyn et al., 2017; Young et al., 2021).

Water conditions in man-made environments such as cooling towers, with temperatures ranging from 20 to 45 °C, are generally beneficial to Legionella growth (Collins et al., 2015; Toplitsch et al., 2021), and these systems contain contaminants like biofilm, scale, and sediments that also support Legionella growth by providing nutrients and protection (Llewellyn et al., 2017; Young et al., 2021). One study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that most cooling towers sampled across the USA had detectable quantities of Legionella DNA, and that this DNA may be present even when biofouling is managed with appropriate treatment programs (Llewellyn et al., 2017).

Given the potential health hazards that these bacteria pose, Legionella populations are commonly monitored across man-made water systems (Krøjgaard et al., 2011; Young et al., 2021). Two methods are most widely used in analytical labs for Legionella monitoring: culture-based testing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) (Whiley & Taylor, 2016).

Culture-based Legionella testing is considered the “gold standard” of monitoring (Collins et al., 2017; Díaz-Flores et al., 2015; Young et al., 2021). Culture testing quantifies Legionella populations by enumerating the bacteria, with populations greater than or equal to 102 (Ahmed et al., 2019) or 104–1010 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015) considered to be a potential risk to human health. Culture results are based on the growth of Legionella in selective medium with incubation periods of up to 10 days, due to slow growth of the bacteria (Toplitsch et al., 2021). Culture testing faces multiple limitations, including long turnaround time and loss of culturable populations during sample transport or holding, and may provide inconclusive results due to interfering organisms present in the sample, among other issues (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015). Inconclusive results due to the growth of microbes in the sample other than Legionella species can occur in up to 20% of samples (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015). This method may also underestimate Legionella populations due to the inability to detect viable but nonculturable organisms (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015). The commonly 10-plus day turnaround time of this methodology can limit the speed of remediation treatments; if a concerning population density is eventually detected, yet mitigation efforts are withheld until these results are delivered, this turnaround time can represent a significant number of opportunities for exposure.

Given the limitations of culture testing, additional methods of Legionella monitoring are being explored and utilized. qPCR allows for more rapid quantification of bacterial populations and possibility of same-day results (Young et al., 2021). qPCR testing works by amplifying, detecting, and quantifying specific nucleic acid targets in a sample, and measuring the amount of the target nucleic acid present through fluorescent labeling of PCR products (Botes et al., 2013). qPCR-based Legionella testing has multiple advantages over culture-based testing, including the detection of viable but nonculturable organisms, more rapid detection of Legionella population levels, and lower limits of detection for Legionella than culture-based methods (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015; Yaradou et al., 2007; Young et al., 2021). Field tests may provide more useful and representative results for a specific system by reducing time between sample collection and testing (Ahmed et al., 2019).

Currently, qPCR has been found effective for routine monitoring in cooling towers and as a valuable tool to trend populations (Yaradou et al., 2007; Young et al., 2021), and is useful in screening out Legionella-negative samples prior to conducting culture-based testing (Collins et al., 2015; Toplitsch et al., 2021). However, qPCR field testing for Legionella has had limited application because qPCR measures concentrations of DNA, which is difficult to correlate with CFU/ml as measured in culture-based testing (Young et al., 2021). Most guidance and regulations on Legionella monitoring only specify target population densities in terms of CFU/ml values (Young et al., 2021), and without regulations that include qPCR results, it would be difficult to shift to qPCR testing exclusively.

Field-based qPCR testing is still in its infancy compared to lab-based qPCR but has recently garnered more interest as a means of faster and more accurate pathogen detection and water quality monitoring (Billington et al., 2021; Sanchez et al., 2023). Rapid molecular biology tests that are specific and sensitive to detecting their target could be a very useful tool for identifying issues with Legionella and other pathogens that present public health risks, particularly for negative screening in systems where routine testing is needed or required and could be supplemented with culture-based testing. Field-based qPCR testing returns results notably faster than shipping samples to an external lab for culture or qPCR testing. Faster return of results allows for rapid evaluation of the effectiveness of biological controls in place, and for timely alteration of treatments if Legionella population densities increase. Faster testing and adjustment of treatment programs may allow for optimization of biocide treatment as well as ecological benefits from reduced biocide feeds (Yaradou et al., 2007; Young et al., 2021).

A variety of Legionella qPCR testing kits are available on the market (LuminUltra's GeneCount™ LT qPCR Assay Kit for Legionella species, Bio-Rad's iQ-Check™ Quanti Legionella spp., Promega's Legionella qPCR Kits with Live/Dead Cell Differentiation, Spartan Bioscience Inc.’s Legionella Detection System, etc.) for use in Legionella monitoring, some of which utilize viability qPCR to measure exclusively DNA from live bacteria (Lizana et al., 2017). qPCR has been evaluated for repeat testing in some cooling tower systems for complexes of factories (Young et al., 2021); prior studies primarily focus on monitoring a small number of systems and system types and have not assessed field-deployable qPCR tests across a variety of water sample types from a wide variety of independent industrial sites across multiple different industries, as was explored in this study.

To evaluate the utility of an LT qPCR test for Legionella in industrial water systems, the authors tested a variety of industrial water samples by three different Legionella detection methods: a culture-based test, a high-throughput lab-based qPCR testing method (HT qPCR), and a low-throughput qPCR test kit (LT qPCR) that can be used in the field; each of the qPCR tests measures all Legionella species within a sample. This study compared the agreement between the methods in detecting the presence and quantity of Legionella in man-made water systems, primarily industrial cooling towers and closed loops. This comparison was conducted to better understand the strengths of the LT qPCR method, its negative predictive capability across different industrial water sample types, and the likelihood of increased positive results returned by LT qPCR testing (as compared with culture testing) due to higher sensitivity to detect all Legionella DNA present in a sample. The LT qPCR test utilized in this study has a turnaround time of about 2–3 hours for DNA extraction and amplification, which is markedly faster than culture testing, utilizes more transportable equipment than HT qPCR testing, and can test up to 14 samples at once plus a positive and negative control. Due to its faster turnaround time and greater sensitivity than culture testing, LT qPCR testing may be an effective option for negative screening at industrial sites with high-frequency Legionella testing requirements.

Methods

Three test methods were compared in this study: culture-based testing performed by a certified lab, an HT qPCR test performed at LuminUltra Technologies Ltd. for all Legionella species, and an LT qPCR test kit from LuminUltra, which tests for presence of all Legionella species and is field deployable. The HT and LT qPCR methods use the same primers for DNA amplification but use different DNA extraction protocols and different instruments for thermocycling; this difference in DNA extraction protocol and thermocycler used is what allows the LT qPCR method to be accessible as a portable field-testing method. The LT qPCR method was compared with the lab-based HT qPCR to determine whether there were any performance differences between the methods.

Water samples included in this study were collected at independent sites across the USA; samples were collected in one bottle and shipped overnight to ChemTreat. Upon arriving each sample was divided into three bottles for testing via each of the three methods (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Overview of the Legionella testing scheme used in this study. Samples were collected from a variety of nonpotable and potable water sources. All samples underwent Legionella testing via three methods: field-based low-throughput quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) (ISO-12869), culture-based testing (ISO-17131), and lab-based high-throughput qPCR (ISO-12869). Figure created with BioRender.com.

Upon arrival, a portion of each sample was shipped overnight to a certified Legionella testing laboratory for standardized culture-based testing, arriving within 48 hr of collection. The lab follows ISO standard 11731:2017 (ISO 11731:2017, 2017).. This method can be purchased from the American National Standards Institute webstore. Results are returned within 7–14 days.

Upon arrival, a portion of each sample was tested in the ChemTreat R&D lab by the LuminUltra LT qPCR method. Testing was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions on the day of sample arrival at the lab. For the LT qPCR test, 50 ml (samples 1–45) or 100 ml (samples 45–77) was processed using the GeneCount LT DNA Purification kit, product code 50-30-30054, and the GeneCount qPCR Legionella Species Assay kit.

Upon arrival, a portion of each sample was preserved to be sent to LuminUltra for HT qPCR. To preserve the sample, 100 ml of sample is filtered through a 0.2-µm polyethersulfone (PES) filter, and the filter paper is placed into a DNA preservation buffer tube containing lyophilized preservation buffer A, to which 1.5 ml of nuclease-free water is added and the sample is vortexed. Samples preserved for HT qPCR were stored in a fridge at 36 °F for up to 2 weeks prior to shipping to LuminUltra for the HT qPCR test for Legionella species. LuminUltra moved from an HT manual DNA extraction method to a qKit automated DNA extraction method during this project. Samples 1–6 were tested with a separate method not described in this report as all six samples tested negative. Samples 7–45 were tested with the HT procedure using manual DNA purification. Samples 46–77 were tested with the qKit automated DNA purification method. The HT manual DNA purification used on samples 7–45 uses phenol chloroform isoamyl alcohol extraction and spin column purification prior to qPCR, whereas the qKit extraction uses magnetic bead DNA purification. A comparison between the LT and HT qPCR DNA extraction protocols is shown below.

	Test method	
Feature	LT qPCR	HT qPCR	qKit (lab) preserve and purify standard	
Sample types	Low solid fluid samples	Solid, liquid, swab	Solid, liquid, swab	
Initial sample handling	Filtration and washing	Homogenization and shaking	Rehydration and mixing	
Lysis procedure	Lysis solution and filtration through syringe	Lysis solution followed by incubation with phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol	Lysis solution, vortexing, and incubation in dry bath	
DNA cleanup method	DNA cleanup column with wash buffers	DNA cleanup with column filtration and wash buffers	Magnetic beads with wash buffer	
Final DNA elution	Elution buffer into tube	Elution buffer	Elution buffer	
Equipment required	Syringe filter, centrifuge	Vortex, centrifuge, dry bath	Vortex, centrifuge, dry bath	

For both the LT and HT qPCR assays, positive and negative results for qPCR are determined by the critical threshold (Ct), which is the number of amplification cycles needed for a fluorescence signal to pass above a set threshold. Samples that are positive will have early to moderate Ct values indicating presence of a moderate to high abundance of the gene target in the sample, and samples that are negative will have late Ct values indicating low to no abundance of a gene target in the sample and indicating that the amount of the gene target in the sample is close to the limit of detection of the assay. Positive and negative determination is set by the software and instrumentation provided by LuminUltra. qPCR results within the limit of quantification of the assay (12 genomic units (GU)/reaction for Legionella species) are quantified.

A total of 77 samples were collected and tested in parallel with each method described above. Several samples were retested via the LT qPCR test where technical difficulties arose; extracted DNA used for the LT qPCR testing was stored in a fridge at 36 °F in case of a need to retest samples.

Assay Design and Validation

The Legionella GeneCount® assays have undergone extensive laboratory testing, including rigorous design for specific and sensitive assay targets. All manufacturer qPCR validation experiments were performed in duplicate (at minimum), including (but not limited to) positive control, negative control, internal control (where applicable),next generation sequencing (NGS)-confirmed environmental samples, and at minimum 7 points from a tenfold dilution series of synthetic template (typically 2.4 million copies down to 2.4 copies). The Legionella assays were designed with proprietary mastermix reagents and were run in GeneCount® Q-Series devices. Data analyses were performed with GCQ-48 and GeneCount® software with autointegration and preset assay parameters.

Assay components are freeze-dried and dispensed into eight-tube (0.2 µl) assay strips (48 total reactions). The freeze-dried assays include all necessary components for the reaction including primers, probes, deoxyribose nucleotide triphosphate (dNTP), and polymerase. The GeneCount® thermocycler has preset software settings programmed for Legionella assay detection, with the following cycling conditions: Heat to 95 °C for 3 min (1 cycle), and then 95 °C for 20 s followed by 60 °C for 60 s for 45 cycles.

The GeneCount® LT extraction method and Legionella sp. assays have been previously validated by a third-party lab in accordance with the performance requirements outlined in ISO-12869 (2017). The methods were verified for inclusivity and/or exclusivity, linear regression curve for calibration, amplification efficiency, limit of detection and quantification, extraction recovery, and robustness (Duguay et al., 2023; LuminUltra, 2022). The Legionella sp. assay has an limit of detection (LOD) of five gene copies/reaction.

Results and Discussion

From May 2022 to May 2023, 77 samples were collected and tested for Legionella as part of this study to evaluate the negative predictive capability of an LT qPCR method across different industrial water sample types, and the likelihood of increased positive results returned for LT qPCR testing (as compared with culture testing) due to higher sensitivity to detect all Legionella DNA present in a sample.

A diverse set of water samples were collected, including potable and nonpotable water sources from a range of locations, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Distribution of samples collected and tested in this study. Sample type, number of samples of each type, and percent of total samples are identified on the chart.

Results by Method

In this study both the LT and HT qPCR methods returned positive results with a higher frequency than the culture-based method; this is in line with a prior study that also compared both qPCR and culture-based methods concurrently and indicated that qPCR testing is 50–100% more likely to return a positive result than testing by culture (Young et al., 2021), and agrees with other studies indicating higher rates of positive results via qPCR than by culture, such as Lee et al. (2011).

In this study, 6 samples out of the 77 total samples (7%) tested positive by culture, 26 samples (33.8%) tested positive by the LT qPCR test, and 41 samples (53.3%) tested positive by the HT qPCR test, shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Bar graph showing the percent of 77 total samples that tested positive and negative by each of the three test methods (HT qPCR, LT qPCR, culture). Positive results are shown on the left side of each bar, and negative results are shown on the right side of each bar. More samples tested positive via the qPCR tests than by culture.

The results from the LT and HT qPCR tests largely agreed, with 23 of 77 samples (29.9%) testing positive by both methods. In cases where the qPCR results did not agree, it was primarily the case that the HT qPCR lab test returned positive results where the LT qPCR test returned negative results. There were 18 samples out of the 77 total (23.4%) that had a positive result for Legionella via the HT qPCR test, but those same samples tested negative with the LT qPCR test.

Three samples tested positive by LT qPCR but negative by HT qPCR. These disagreements could be due to differences in the DNA extraction methods used and/or sample holding times. While both the LT and HT methods meet the performance requirements outlined in ISO-12869 (2017) for extraction efficiency and robustness, the LT qPCR test produces lower purity DNA, which could lead to the differences in results between the assays, and there could also be qPCR inhibition due to sample components occurring at quantities that interfere with extraction efficiency.

The LT samples were normally tested within 24 hr of sample collection; however, the HT samples were preserved at the time of sample collection and shipped to the lab for analysis (normally within 2 weeks). Overall, these results reflect that the qPCR tests returned positive results at a higher rate than culture-based testing.

Results Returned by Sample Type

The 77 samples included in this study were from 34 cooling towers, 26 closed cooling loops, 5 open cooling loops, 3 reverse osmosis (RO) feedwaters, 3 showerheads, 2 faucets, 1 condenser, and 1 decorative fountain. A detailed breakdown of the positive and negative results by system location is shown in Table 1. Of 77 samples, 6 tested positive for Legionella via culture testing, all of which were cooling tower samples. Of the cooling tower samples, 44.1% (15 samples) tested positive by the LT qPCR test and 70.6% (24 samples) tested positive by the HT qPCR test.

Table 1. Results for All Sample Types and Test Methods

		Culture test	LT qPCR	HT qPCR	
Sample type	Total samples	Neg	Pos	Percent Pos	Neg	Pos	Percent Pos	Neg	Pos	Percent Pos	
Cooling tower	34	28	6	17.6	19	15	44.1	10	24	70.6	
Closed loop	26	26	0	0.0	20	6	23.1	18	8	30.8	
Open loop	5	5	0	0.0	1	4	80.0	2	3	60.0	
RO feedwater	3	3	0	0.0	3	0	0.0	3	0	0.0	
Shower	3	3	0	0.0	2	1	33.3	1	2	66.7	
Cooling water	2	2	0	0.0	2	0	0.0	0	2	100.0	
Faucet	2	2	0	0.0	2	0	0.0	1	1	50.0	
Condenser	1	1	0	0.0	1	0	0.0	0	1	100.0	
Decorative fountain	1	1	0	0.0	1	0	0.0	1	0	0.0	
Note. The number of samples testing negative (neg) and positive (pos) for each sample type and method is shown, along with percent positive by each method. HT = high-throughput; LT = low-throughput; qPCR = quantitative polymerase chain reaction; RO = reverse osmosis.

The high positivity rate in cooling water is consistent with other studies that have shown the presence of Legionella in these locations, where water temperature, nutrients, and dynamic water flow create ideal biofilm conditions and lead to the rapid proliferation of the bacteria (Atlas, 1999; Fitzhenry et al., 2017; Young et al., 2021). Legionella has been found, in some instances, to be tolerant of heat and biocides (Toplitsch et al., 2021; Whiley & Taylor, 2016), among other stressors, and may persist in systems (Toplitsch et al., 2021), especially in association with biofilms (Whiley & Taylor, 2016).

Outside of those samples labelled as cooling tower water, all water samples from the other system locations tested negative by culture; however, many were positive by the LT and HT qPCR tests. Other studies have shown that Legionella colonizes potable water systems at a relatively high frequency and exposure from building water distribution systems is linked with up to 56% of all cases in the USA (Garrison et al., 2016). RO feedwater samples were negative by all test methods.

Positive and Negative Predictive Values

The positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs) for the LT and HT qPCR methods were determined relative to the culture method (Table 2). Using the culture method as the gold standard, the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives is determined for each method (for Legionella species only) and used in the following equations:

\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} \begin{eqnarray*} {\mathrm{Positive\ predictive\ value\ }}\left( {{\mathrm{PPV}}} \right) = \frac{{{\mathrm{true\ positives}}}}{{{\mathrm{true\ positives}} + {\mathrm{false\ positives}}}}, \end{eqnarray*}\end{document}

\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} \begin{eqnarray*} {\mathrm{Negative\ predictive\ value\ }}\left( {{\mathrm{NPV}}} \right) = \frac{{{\mathrm{true\ negatives}}}}{{{\mathrm{true\ negatives}} + {\mathrm{false\ negatives}}}}. \end{eqnarray*}\end{document}

Both the LT and HT qPCR methods have very low PPV values (15.38 and 14.63%, respectively), suggesting that a significant proportion of the positive results from these methods are not confirmed by the culture results. This could be due to several reasons, including the low number of overall positive culture samples (six total) and variability in the limits of detection and quantification for the different methods. In addition, qPCR can detect DNA from both viable and nonviable cells and/or viable but nonculturable bacteria. On the other hand, the NPVs for both the LT and HT qPCR methods were extremely high (96.08% and 100%). This indicates that negative results from these methods are highly likely to be true negatives when compared to culture results and would be highly reliable in ruling out the presence of Legionella when the result is negative. These results are consistent with other published results comparing qPCR with culture methods (Ahmed et al., 2019; Collins et al., 2015, 2017).

Table 2. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) for Legionella qPCR Methods (LT and HT) Compared to Culture Method, as Calculated Using the Formulas Listed in the Text

Method	PPV (%)	NPV (%)	
LT qPCR Legionella spp.	15.38	96.08	
HT qPCR Legionella spp.	14.63	100	
Note. Both qPCR methods have very high NPVs as compared with culture testing. HT = high-throughput; LT = low-throughput; qPCR = quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Effect of Filtered Sample Volume on LT qPCR Results

During the preparation for this study, the initial sample volume for the LT qPCR was set at 50 ml. This volume was selected because it would allow for a technician to filter the volume of a single 50-ml syringe of sample rather than multiple. After two samples tested negative by LT qPCR using 50 ml of sample, while the same sample tested positive by the culture method, the authors decided to increase the volume used for the LT qPCR test to 100 ml, the same volume that was processed for HT qPCR, to determine the impact that this would have on the correlation between the LT qPCR and culture testing.

The LT qPCR test was performed using either 50 or 100 ml of sample, while the HT qPCR lab-based testing was performed using 100 ml of sample for all samples, and the culture test was performed on 0.2 ml of sample for all samples. The test results are shown in Table 3. It was shown in Table 1 that HT qPCR samples tested positive for Legionella more frequently than the LT qPCR method overall, and this is true regardless of volume used for LT qPCR.

Table 3. Results by Sample Volume Tested

Test method	Samples	Sample volume (ml)	Result	Sample count	Percent of total samples (of either 45 or 32 samples)	
Culture	1–45 (45 samples)	0.2	Pos	3	6.7	
			Neg	42	93.3	
	46–77 (32 samples)	0.2	Pos	3	9.4	
			Neg	29	90.6	
LT qPCR	1–45 (45 samples)	50	Pos	12	26.7	
			Neg	33	73.3	
	46–77 (32 samples)	100	Pos	14	43.8	
			Neg	18	56.3	
HT qPCR	1–45 (45 samples)	100	Pos	19	42.2	
			Neg	26	57.8	
	46–77 (32 samples)	100	Pos	22	68.8	
			Neg	10	31.3	
Note. 50 ml of sample was used for the first 45 samples for LT qPCR; 100 ml of sample was used for 32 samples (number 46–77) for LT qPCR. This table lists sample volume, number of samples that tested negative (neg) and positive (pos) by each method, and percent of total samples. HT = high-throughput; LT = low-throughput; qPCR = quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

All six samples that tested positive via culture were also positive via the HT qPCR test. Of the six samples, which tested positive via culture, four of these also tested positive via the LT qPCR test. A breakdown of results by sample volume can be seen in Table 4. Samples 25 and 26, which used 50 ml of sample for the LT qPCR test and had negative results by the LT test, had 10 and 15 CFU/ml of Legionella based on the culture test. Sample 27, which also used 50 ml of sample for the LT test but had a positive result by LT qPCR, had 20 CFU/ml of Legionella based on the culture test. This may indicate that 50 ml of sample is insufficient to detect less than 20 CFU/ml of Legionella in cooling water using the LT qPCR test, since the two samples, which tested negative by LT qPCR while filtering only 50 ml of sample water, had less than 20 CFU/ml.

Table 4. Samples That Tested Positive via Culture and Their Corresponding LT qPCR Results

Sample number	Culture result	Culture (CFU/ml)	LT qPCR result	LT qPCR volume	
25	Positive	10	Negative	50	
26	Positive	15	Negative	50	
27	Positive	20	Positive	50	
68	Positive	5	Positive	100	
71	Positive	5	Positive	100	
73	Positive	20	Positive	100	
Note. Six individual samples tested positive via culture, and the LT qPCR results for these samples are shown, along with the volume used for the LT qPCR test. CFU = colony-forming units; LT = low-throughput; qPCR = quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Samples 68 and 71 used 100 ml of sample for LT qPCR, and this volume of sample was sufficient to detect 5 CFU/ml as shown from the culture testing results. With only six positive culture results throughout the study, these results are limited, but may indicate that any use of this LT qPCR test for cooling water could benefit from using a minimum of 100 ml of sample to aid in detection of Legionella at less than 20 CFU/ml.

For the two samples, which tested negative by the LT qPCR test and positive by culture, this discrepancy could be due to being close to the LOD of the qPCR methodology resulting in a nondetect result, and/or due to Legionella not being homogenously distributed in the samples. All samples were shaken and vortexed prior to dividing into three for use with each test method, but this may not fully address all biofilm clumps or attachment to suspended solids, which could result in a low-level culture positive due to a clump of Legionella, and a nondetect result by the LT qPCR test.

Increased sample volume helps to address nonhomogenous distribution of bacteria in samples and increase the sensitivity of the assay. Increasing sample volume used in LT qPCR testing would increase sample handling time in the field and could deter some users if high volumes are needed per sample or if their site has a particularly high number of samples. Higher-throughput sampling utilizing a vacuum manifold to process larger volumes of sample would increase Legionella detection sensitivity and precision of the assay but would require more equipment than is standard for the LT qPCR test.

Interferences of Closed-Loop Samples

Closed-loop samples tested via the LT qPCR test in this study frequently tested negative and with a failed internal control, indicating that these samples may contain materials that interfere with the test. Industrial water systems contain a variety of known treatment additives and often contain leaked process materials as well; further testing would be needed to identify specific interferants in these samples. Previous studies have identified that qPCR may be inhibited by compounds present in environmental water samples such as divalent cations, minerals, or other substances (Díaz-Flores et al., 2015), and these inhibitory compounds may cause false-negative results (Young et al., 2021).

A total of 19 samples tested negative with a failed internal control when using the LT qPCR method. The 19 samples were made up of 11 closed-loop samples (11 of 26 closed-loop samples, or 42.3%) and 8 cooling tower samples (8 of 34 cooling tower samples, or 23.5%). These samples were retested after performing a 1:10 dilution of the extracted DNA with nuclease-free water in hopes of diluting any interferants beyond a level where they could affect the LT qPCR test. For the purposes of this analysis, any samples tested via LT qPCR more than once, which tested positive at least once, were counted as being positive, even if one of the replicates tested negative.

Upon rerunning these samples after dilution, 3 tested negative again with a failed internal control, 14 tested negative with a passing internal control, and 2 tested positive. For 16 of 19 samples (84.2%), the 1:10 dilution was enough to address interferants and provide a result. The 3 samples that tested negative with a failed internal control a second time were from one cooling tower and two closed loops. The 14 samples that tested negative with a passing internal control were from 9 closed-loops and 5 cooling towers. The 2 samples, which tested positive, were from cooling towers.

A total of 42.3% of the closed-loop samples tested in this study tested negative with a failed internal control and needed to be retested after a 1:10 dilution of extracted DNA. This shows the importance of including an internal control in any qPCR method that is used, as it provides a warning of potential interference in the results that would not otherwise be detected by methods that do not include controls for this purpose, such as the culture test.

Repeating the LT qPCR test after performing a 1:10 dilution of the samples was adequate to address interferants in 9 of the 11 closed-loop samples (81.8%), and 7 of 8 cooling tower samples (87.5%). If this methodology is to be used regularly at industrial sites with contaminants that may interfere with the test, it should be standard practice to run samples at a 1:10 dilution if the internal control fails and to determine the appropriate dilution required to remove the interference if it persists beyond the 1:10 dilution. It is also important to note that dilution will lower the sensitivity of detection, so it would be prudent to increase the volume of samples filtered to increase the sensitivity and limit of detection to application-relevant values.

Conclusions

Legionella is a genus of bacteria ubiquitous in man-made and natural water systems, which can proliferate in man-made systems and cause illness in at-risk individuals. Due to the health risks they may present, it is important to rapidly and effectively monitor Legionella. In this study, 77 samples from a variety of industrial water systems from numerous factories and other sites were tested by three test methods to evaluate performance of an LT qPCR Legionella test that is capable of being used in the field. The test methods used were an HT qPCR), an LT qPCR (both qPCR tests target all Legionella species), and standard culture-based testing. Both LT and HT qPCR tests were included in this study to identify any differences in performance between the methods, and support that the LT qPCR test that can be utilized in the field provides comparable information to the HT test.

The results indicated that both the LT and HT qPCR tests detected Legionella in samples more frequently than culture-based testing, across all sample types. The qPCR tests were largely in agreement, with 23 of 77 samples (29.9%) testing positive by both methods. However, the HT qPCR test returned positive results more frequently than the LT qPCR test, with 18 of 77 samples (23.4%) testing positive via the HT qPCR test but negative with the LT qPCR test; this could be due to the differences in DNA extraction between the methods. The findings of this study are supported by previous research demonstrating the higher sensitivity of qPCR methods compared to culture-based tests. Collins et al. (2015) and Young et al. (2021) have shown that qPCR testing often returns more positive results due to its ability to detect both viable and nonculturable organisms. This study's results align with these findings, underscoring the utility of qPCR as a rapid and sensitive detection method.

In this study, both LT and HT qPCR reported more positive results than culture and had high NPV. The higher detection rate of Legionella by qPCR in this study is consistent with the work of Whiley and Taylor (2016), who noted that qPCR could detect DNA from nonviable cells, which may inflate population measurements. However, the high NPV of the qPCR methods used here indicates their reliability in ruling out the presence of Legionella when results are negative, as corroborated by Díaz-Flores et al. (2015). The high NPV of both the LT and HT methods highlights the value of using qPCR as a negative screening tool. This could be used in many different applications and would be particularly useful when there are larger numbers of samples to be tested, for example, during system audits or case investigations to uncover the source of a Legionella outbreak. In addition, monitoring cooling water or potable water systems for treatment efficacy would present ideal scenarios to rapidly screen sample locations for priority follow-up with culture-based testing.

We observed that sample volume affected LT qPCR test results, with higher sample volumes testing positive more often due to increased sensitivity. The results indicated that 100 ml of sample may be sufficient to detect low levels of Legionella using the LT qPCR test in cooling water samples.

Closed-loop samples frequently contained components that interfered with the LT qPCR test. For 81.8% of samples, this could be addressed by performing a 1:10 dilution of the extracted DNA and running the LT qPCR test again. A follow-up study exploring interferants could provide additional insight into the limitations of qPCR in industrial water monitoring.

Rapid quantification of Legionella populations in industrial systems can be crucial for evaluation of the efficacy of water treatment programs. Tests such as the LT qPCR assay that can be used in the field could be useful for monitoring and establishing baseline population levels in a system and identifying spikes in growth, which may indicate system changes necessitating additional treatment or operational adjustments to manage increased bacterial densities. Faster adjustment of treatment programs to meet system needs may save resources and time, alongside reducing opportunities for exposure to Legionella. Long-term tracking of the results produced by qPCR coupled with normal water treatment testing could also be used to help troubleshoot a system where changes have occurred and gone unidentified (Young et al., 2021).

Implementing field-based qPCR for environmental and process monitoring for Legionella has several advantages, including rapid notifications of elevated levels of Legionella in environmental samples that may present public health risks (potable and nonpotable water sources). In addition, rapid feedback times allow for mitigations to be enacted and effectiveness verified within 1–2 days, rather than weeks that are required for culture-based tests, allowing for more optimized and efficient control programs, which can improve water quality and reduce risk to public health. This study highlights the practical application of field-deployable qPCR tests for routine monitoring and outbreak investigations. Yaradou et al. (2007) and Krøjgaard et al. (2011) have emphasized the importance of rapid and accurate Legionella detection for timely intervention, a goal well supported by the findings of this study.

In summary, the results presented in this study contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of qPCR for Legionella monitoring, providing a basis for considering regulatory adjustments to include qPCR results alongside traditional culture-based testing. The LT qPCR test evaluated showed similar negative predictive power to the HT qPCR test across the variety of industrial samples tested in this study, while using more transportable equipment and a faster protocol, supporting that the LT qPCR testing methodology may be an effective option for negative screening of industrial water samples.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge LuminUltra Technologies for support in using their methodologies and for providing information used in the “Methods” section of this paper. The authors would also like to acknowledge Helen Cerra and the team of ChemTreat for providing insight into Legionella testing and treatment practices in industry.

Thank you to our intern, Christian Hudspeth, for assistance with literature search and general feedback.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: B.N. and D.M.; methodology: B.N. and D.M.; sample procurement: M.M.; laboratory testing: A.C.; supervision: B.N.; initial manuscript preparation: A.C.; and manuscript revisions and alterations: A.C., B.N., D.M., and J.D. All authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of this manuscript.

Funding

Not declared.

Conflict of Interest

Jeremy Duguay is employed by LuminUltra Technologies Ltd., the company that manufactures the qPCR materials utilized in this study. Jeremy contributed to data interpretation and paper editing but was not involved in sample collection or testing. All supplies and instruments used were purchased by ChemTreat. The authors declare no other potential conflicts of interest.
==== Refs
References

Ahmed  S., Liwak-Muir  U., Walker  D., Zoldowski  A., Mears  A., Golovan  S., Mohr  S., Lem  P., Harder  C. (2019). Validation and in-field testing of a new on-site qPCR system for quantification of Legionella pneumophila according to ISO/TS 12869: 2012 in HVAC cooling towers. Journal of Water and Health, 17 (2 ), 237–253. 10.2166/wh.2019.252 30942774
Atlas  R. M. (1999). Legionella: From environmental habitats to disease pathology, detection and control. Environmental Microbiology, 1 , 283–293. 10.1046/j.1462-2920.1999.00046.x 11207747
Berjeaud  J. M., Chevalier  S., Schlusselhuber  M., Portier  E., Loiseau  C., Aucher  W., Lesouhaitier  O., Verdon  J. (2016). Legionella pneumophila: The paradox of a highly sensitive opportunistic waterborne pathogen able to persist in the environment. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7 , 486. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00486 27092135
Billington  C., Abeysekera  G., Scholes  P., Pickering  P., Pang  L. (2021). Utility of a field deployable qPCR instrument for analyzing freshwater quality. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment, 4 (4 ), e20223. 10.1002/agg2.20223
Botes  M., de Kwaadsteniet  M., Cloete  T. E. (2013). Application of quantitative PCR for the detection of microorganisms in water. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 405 , 91–108. 10.1007/s00216-012-6399-3 23001336
Collins  S., Jorgensen  F., Willis  C., Walker  J. (2015). Real-time PCR to supplement gold-standard culture-based detection of Legionella in environmental samples. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 119 (4 ), 1158–1169. 10.1111/jam.12911 26218315
Collins  S., Stevenson  D., Walker  J., Bennett  A. (2017). Evaluation of Legionella real-time PCR against traditional culture for routine and public health testing of water samples. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 122 (6 ), 1692–1703. 10.1111/jam.13461 28376265
Díaz-Flores  Á., Montero  J. C., Castro  F. J., Alejandres  E. M., Bayón  C., Solís  I., Fernández-Lafuente  R., Rodríguez  G. (2015). Comparing methods of determining Legionella spp. in complex water matrices. BMC Microbiology, 15 (1 ), 1–9. 10.1186/s12866-015-0423-7 25591663
Duguay  J. D., King  H., Sharma  N., Schmidt  J. (2023). Validation of a portable qPCR method for the detection of Legionella. The Analyst  (summer edition). https://www.awt.org/resources/the-analyst/the-analyst-archive/
Fitzhenry  R., Weiss  D., Cimini  D., Balter  S., Boyd  C., Alleyne  L., Stewart  R., McIntosh  N., Econome  A., Lin  Y., Rubinstein  I., Passaretti  T., Kidney  A., Lapierre  P., Kass  D., Varma  J. K. (2017). Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks and cooling towers, New York City, New York, USA. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 23 (11 ), 1769–76. 10.3201/eid2311.161584 29049017
Garrison  L. E., Kunz  J. M., Cooley  L. A., Moore  M. R., Lucas  C., Schrag  S., Whitney  C. G. (2016). Vital signs: deficiencies in environmental control identified in outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease—North America, 2000–2014. American Journal of Transplantation, 16 (10 ), 3049–3058. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6522e1
ISO 11731:2017 . (2017). Water quality—enumeration of Legionella. International Organization for Standardization.
Krøjgaard  L. H., Krogfelt  K. A., Albrechtsen  H. J., Uldum  S. A. (2011). Detection of Legionella by quantitative-polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for monitoring and risk assessment. BMC Microbiology, 11 , 1–7. 10.1186/1471-2180-11-254 21194490
Lee  J. V., Lai  S., Exner  M., Lenz  J., Gaia  V., Casati  S., Hartemann  P., Lück  C., Pangon  B., Ricci  M. L., Scaturro  M., Fontana  S., Sabria  M., Sánchez  I., Assaf  S., Surman-Lee  S. (2011). An international trial of quantitative PCR for monitoring Legionella in artificial water systems. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 110 (4 ), 1032–1044. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.04957.x 21276147
Lizana  X., López  A., Benito  S., Agustí  G., Ríos  M., Piqué  N., Marqués  A. M., Codony  F. (2017). Viability qPCR, a new tool for Legionella risk management. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220 (8 ), 1318–1324. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.007 28882518
Llewellyn  A. C., Lucas  C. E., Roberts  S. E., Brown  E. W., Nayak  B. S., Raphael  B. H., Winchell  J. M. (2017). Distribution of Legionella and bacterial community composition among regionally diverse US cooling towers. PLoS ONE, 12 (12 ), e0189937. 10.1371/journal.pone.0189937 29261791
LuminUltra. (2022). Validation of LuminUltra's GeneCount qPCR methods for rapid detection of Legionella species and Legionella pneumophila. https://luminultratechnologiesltd.sharepoint.com/:b:/s/Public/Sales%20Marketing/EaJ41rhA8lZHttVbqkDqleYB6y7qRwz-CXeuKc58qHNsAA?e=0ZaZG0
Percival  S. L., Williams  D. W. (2014). 8 Legionella. In Microbiology of waterborne diseases (pp. 155–175). Elsevier.
Sanchez  M. R., Denning  E., Biondi  T. C., Hovde  B., Eacker  S., Getto  S., Kaur  H., Jebali  A., Echenique-Subiabre  I., Green  M., Gerber  J., Auch  B., Holguin  F. O., Liachko  I., Martinez  H., Balleza  M., Nalley  J., O'Kelly  C., Shurin  J. B., Starkenburg  S. R. (2023). Development of a field-deployable qPCR assay for real-time pest monitoring in algal cultivation systems. Algal Research, 74 , 103194. 10.1016/j.algal.2023.103194
Toplitsch  D., Platzer  S., Zehner  R., Maitz  S., Mascher  F., Kittinger  C. (2021). Comparison of updated methods for Legionella detection in environmental water samples. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (10 ), 5436. 10.3390/ijerph18105436 34069615
Whiley  H., Taylor  M. (2016). Legionella detection by culture and qPCR: Comparing apples and oranges. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 42 (1 ), 65–74. 10.3109/1040841x.2014.885930 24580080
Yaradou  D. F., Hallier-Soulier  S., Moreau  S., Poty  F., Hillion  Y., Reyrolle  M., André  J., Festoc  G., Delabre  K., Vandenesch  F., Etienne  J., Jarraud  S. (2007). Integrated real-time PCR for detection and monitoring of Legionella pneumophila in water systems. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73 (5 ), 1452–1456. 10.1128/aem.02399-06 17194840
Young  C., Smith  D., Wafer  T., Crook  B. (2021). Rapid testing and interventions to control Legionella proliferation following a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak associated with cooling towers. Microorganisms, 9 (3 ), 615. 10.3390/microorganisms9030615 33802700
