# Quantitative real-time PCR as a promising tool for the detection and quantification of leaf-associated fungal species – A proof-of-concept using Alatospora pulchella

Alexander Feckler, Anne Schrimpf, Mirco Bundschuh, Felix Bärlocher, Patrick

Baudy, Julien Cornut, Ralf Schulz

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Alexander Feckler, Anne Schrimpf, Mirco Bundschuh, Felix Bärlocher, Patrick Baudy, et al. Quantitative real-time PCR as a promising tool for the detection and quantification of leaf-associated fungal species – A proof-of-concept using Alatospora pulchella. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12 (4), pp.e0174634. 10.1371/journal.pone.0174634. hal-03216353

HAL Id: hal-03216353

https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-03216353

Submitted on 4 May 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Quantitative real-time PCR as a promising tool for the detection and quantification of leaf-associated fungal species – A proof-of-concept using *Alatospora pulchella*

Alexander Feckler¹,², Anne Schrimpf¹, Mirco Bundschuh¹,², Felix Bärlocher³, Patrick Baudy¹, Julien Cornut⁴,⁵,⁶, Ralf Schulz¹*

¹ Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany, ² Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden,

³ Department of Biology, Mt. Allison University, Sackville, Canada, ⁴ Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux, UMR CNRS 7360, Université de Lorraine, Metz, France, ⁵ Department of Experimental Limnology, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Stechlin, Germany, ⁶ MARE–Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

* schulz@uni-landau.de

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Feckler A, Schrimpf A, Bundschuh M, Bärlocher F, Baudy P, Cornut J, et al. (2017) Quantitative real-time PCR as a promising tool for the detection and quantification of leaf-associated fungal species – A proof-of-concept using *Alatospora pulchella*. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174634

**Editor:** Ulrich Melcher, Oklahoma State University, UNITED STATES

**Received:** July 4, 2016

**Accepted:** March 13, 2017

**Published:** April 6, 2017

**Copyright:** © 2017 Feckler et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. GenBank Accession numbers for the fungal strains used during the present study are given in Table 1.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (grant number SCHU 2271/14-1), the Carl Tryggers Foundation, Stockholm (grant number CTS 13:72), and the Fix Stiftung, Landau. Financial support by the

## Abstract

Traditional methods to identify aquatic hyphomycetes rely on the morphology of released conidia, which can lead to misidentifications or underestimates of species richness due to convergent morphological evolution and the presence of non-sporulating mycelia. Molecular methods allow fungal identification irrespective of the presence of conidia or their morphology. As a proof-of-concept, we established a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay to accurately quantify the amount of DNA as a proxy for the biomass of an aquatic hyphomycete species (*Alatospora pulchella*). Our study showed discrimination even among genetically closely-related species, with a high sensitivity and a reliable quantification down to 9.9 fg DNA (3 PCR forming units; LoD) and 155.0 fg DNA (47 PCR forming units; LoQ), respectively. The assay's specificity was validated for environmental samples that harboured diverse microbial communities and likely contained PCR-inhibiting substances. This makes qPCR a promising tool to gain deeper insights into the ecological roles of aquatic hyphomycetes and other microorganisms.

## Introduction

Aquatic hyphomycetes are a polyphyletic group of true fungi of paramount significance in the process of leaf litter decomposition in freshwater ecosystems [1, 2]. Contaminants like fungicides and pharmaceuticals potentially threaten the functioning of this group, suggesting that aquatic hyphomycetes may be suitable bioindicators to assess anthropogenic stress [3–5]. To better understand the contribution of individual aquatic hyphomycete species to leaf litter decomposition and to estimate the impact of anthropogenic stress, knowledge of fungal community composition and of performances (e.g., biomass production) by individual species is
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology to Julien Cornut (SFRH/BPD/108779/2015) is gratefully acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

essential, given the substantial interspecific variability among aquatic hyphomycetes [6]. Traditionally, the characterization of aquatic hyphomycete communities has been based on the morphology of asexually produced propagules (i.e., conidia). This approach, however, has several shortcomings including the reliance on a reproductive life phase [7] and analogous morphology of conidia from different species (cf. [8, 9]). Additionally, conidia only provide information on community composition and sporulation rates of individual aquatic hyphomycete species, which does not necessarily correlate with fungal biomass [10]. Total fungal biomass is usually estimated by quantifying ergosterol levels [11]. Although maximum ergosterol content may correlate with the community's maximum sporulation rate [12], such a correlation does not exist at all stages of fungal succession or when addressing individual aquatic hyphomycete species [10, 13].

Molecular techniques, which have been suggested as indispensable tools to investigate the evolution and ecology of aquatic hyphomycetes [14], may help circumvent these shortcomings: since nucleic acids can be characterized during all stages of the fungal life cycle and thus also during non-sporulating phases, species richness could possibly be determined more exhaustively. In this context, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) shows promise, allowing both identification and quantification of individual species by correlation with hyphal biomass and ITS copies (cf. [15]). Applying qPCR assays to studies of leaf litter decomposition is not entirely new (e.g., [6, 16]). However, previously applied methods were based on SYBR Green as fluorescence dye binding to the double-stranded DNA. This technique is not highly selective, since SYBR Green not only binds to the PCR product, but also to primer dimers formed during PCR reactions. Additionally, it seems to lack consistently reproducible quantification when the target gene is expressed at low levels [17]. These shortcomings in specificity as well as sensitivity limit the informative value when compared to highly specific TaqMan probes [16–19].

The present study, therefore, reports the development of a species-specific TaqMan MGB qPCR method allowing accurate quantification of the DNA (used as a proxy for biomass) of the aquatic hyphomycete *Alatospora pulchella*. This species is found globally on decomposing leaf litter in streams and therefore of relevance for the decomposition process [20–22], and it belongs to a genus preferentially fed on by leaf-shredding invertebrates [23, 24]. The protocol was validated against 24 aquatic hyphomycete species tested both individually and in mixtures. In addition, the protocol was tested in the presence of DNA extracts of leaf material from a previous study that contained up to 14 aquatic hyphomycete species [24] to validate the specificity of the assay in environmental samples.

# Materials and methods

## Genetic classification of aquatic hyphomycete strains

To ensure the exclusive use of pure strains of aquatic hyphomycetes during the present study, the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region [25] was sequenced for each strain. The method is fully described in S1 File.

## Design of qPCR primers and probe

The ITS sequences of pure strains (Table 1) were aligned using the ClustalW algorithm [26] and sequence motifs suitable for a species-specific analysis of *A. pulchella* were identified applying the software Primer express 2.0 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California). Two primer binding-sites and one probe binding-site in the ITS-1 region were further tested for species-specificity: forward primer AlaPul-ITSfor (5'–TTGGAGGTCCGGCTGTGT–3'), reverse primer AlaPul-ITSrev (5'–TCCGAGGTCAACCTTAAAAAAATT–3') and TaqMan
<table><caption>Table 1. Information on aquatic hyphomycete strains.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Species identified</th><th rowspan="2">Strain number</th><th rowspan="2">Provenance</th><th rowspan="2">Inclusivity (I) / exclusivity (E) panel</th><th rowspan="2">Accession numbers of strains in present study</th><th rowspan="2">Ct value</th></tr><tr><th>morphologically</th><th>genetically (previously published GenBank accession numbers)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alatospora acuminata</td><td>Alatospora acuminata (AY204588)</td><td>180–1658</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519109</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Alatospora acuminata</td><td>Alatospora acuminata (AY204588)</td><td>CCM F-12186<sup>a</sup></td><td>Slovakia</td><td>E</td><td>AY204588</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Alatospora acuminata</td><td>Alatospora acuminata (AY204588)</td><td>DSM 104360<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Alatospora flagellata</td><td>Alatospora flagellata (KC834041)</td><td>182–1679</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519110</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Alatospora acuminata</td><td>Alatospora pulchella (KF730799)</td><td>130–1663</td><td>France</td><td>I</td><td>KU519111</td><td>12.88</td></tr><tr><td>Alatospora pulchella</td><td>Alatospora pulchella (KU519111)</td><td>DSM 103606<sup>b</sup></td><td>France</td><td>I</td><td>KY616856</td><td>31.09</td></tr><tr><td>Anguillospora crassa</td><td>Anguillospora crassa (AY204581)</td><td>130–1659</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519112</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Anguillospora crassa</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104363<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Anguillospora filiformis</td><td>Anguillospora filiformis (JX089461)</td><td>CCM F-19787<sup>a</sup></td><td>Canada</td><td>E</td><td>KU519113</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Articulospora atra</td><td>Articulospora atra (KP234353)</td><td>CCM F-0684<sup>a</sup></td><td>Czech Republic</td><td>E</td><td>KU519114</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Clavariopsis aquatica</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104362<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Clavatospora longibrachiata</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104364<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Clavatospora longibrachiata</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104365<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Heliscella stellata</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104357<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lemonniera aquatica</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104378<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lemonniera cornuta</td><td>-</td><td>185–1685</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519115</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lemonniera terrestris</td><td>-</td><td>183–1669</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519116</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Neonectria lugdunensis</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104361<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tetracladium breve</td><td>Tetracladium breve (FJ000364)</td><td>CCM F-12505<sup>a</sup></td><td>Portugal</td><td>E</td><td>KU519117</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tetracladium furcatum</td><td>Tetracladium furcatum (KC180668)</td><td>CCM F-11883<sup>a</sup></td><td>Czech Republic</td><td>E</td><td>KU519118</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tetracladium marchalianum</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104373<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tetracladium maxilliforme</td><td>Tetracladium maxilliforme (HM036615)</td><td>CCM F-529<sup>a</sup></td><td>Czech Republic</td><td>E</td><td>KU519119</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tetracladium setigerum</td><td>Tetracladium setigerum (FJ000374)</td><td>CCM F-20987<sup>a</sup></td><td>Canada</td><td>E</td><td>KU519120</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tricladium angulatum</td><td>Tricladium angulatum (AY204610)</td><td>4–1683</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519121</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tricladium chaetocladium</td><td>Tricladium chaetocladium (KC834067)</td><td>180–1646</td><td>France</td><td>E</td><td>KU519122</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tricladium splendens</td><td>Tricladium splendens (FJ000400)</td><td>TRSL162-1436<sup>c</sup></td><td>USA</td><td>E</td><td>KU519123</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tricladium splendens</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104369<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tumularia aquatica</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104371<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tumularia tuberculata</td><td>-</td><td>DSM 104368<sup>b</sup></td><td>Germany</td><td>E</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Aquatic hyphomycete strains (maintained as pure cultures; identified morphologically and genetically) used as a source of DNA. Previously published GenBank accession numbers of reference sequences used for the genetic identification of the aquatic hyphomycete strains are displayed if accessible. Furthermore, the allocation of strains to the inclusivity panel (should be detected) and exclusivity panel (should not be detected) is shown. Newly generated GenBank accession numbers of the strains used during the present study and Ct values of the qPCR are given in the last two columns. Dashes are shown where no new GenBank accession numbers were generated, genetic identification was not possible or no positive signal was detected during qPCR.

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Czech Culture Collection</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Leibniz-Institut DSMZ–Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup>EcoLab—Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement (Eric Chauvet)</footnote>
probe AlaPul-ITSprobe (5' - CCTGCCAGCAACC - 3'). The probe was labeled with 6-carboxy-fluorescein at the 5'-end and MGBNFQ at the 3'-end as fluorescent reporter dye and non-fluorescent quencher, respectively.

## qPCR procedure

qPCR reactions were performed for all DNA extracts of the inclusivity/exclusivity panel for the established assay (Table 1) and run on a Mastercycler® ep realplex S (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany). Each qPCR reaction was performed in a total volume of 25 µL, containing 5 µL template DNA, 8.7 µL sterile ddH₂O, 1.3 µL primer-probe-mix (primers: 18 µM and probe: 5 µM in the stock), and 10 µL TaqMan Environmental Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California) avoiding PCR inhibition [27]. Eppendorf real-time PCR tube strips covered with Masterclear® cap strips (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) were used as reaction vessels for amplification and detection. The qPCR temperature profile entailed the following steps: initial denaturation (2 min at 50°C) for optimal Uracil-N-Glycosylase enzyme activity and successive activation of the DNA polymerase (10 min at 95°C), followed by 50 cycles of 15 sec at 95°C and 1 min at 60°C. Two negative controls (environmental control and extraction blank control) were included at least once in qPCR procedures to exclude any contamination.

## Sensitivity analysis and validation

As a measure of sensitivity and the quantitative range of the developed qPCR procedure, the limit of detection (LoD) and limit of quantification (LoQ) were determined by slightly modifying the method by Vrålstad et al. [28]: in total, 14 standards were prepared by a four-fold serial dilution (4⁻¹, 4⁻², ..., 4⁻¹⁴) of the *A. pulchella* extract (measured initial concentration of 3.6 ng DNA/µL; NanoDrop 1000, NanoDrop products, Wilmington, Delaware; Table 2). For each standard, seven independent qPCR runs were conducted, following the procedure described above. To further validate the specificity of the established assay for environmental samples (i.e., leaf-associated microbial communities), leaf material from a previous study was used in which up to 14 aquatic hyphomycete species were morphologically identified [24]. The full method description is reported in S2 File.

## Data analysis

Since some target DNA copies serving as templates for a PCR may be damaged or fragmented (e.g., during extraction and freeze-thaw during handling), DNA mass measurements may overestimate copy numbers [29]. Hence, the term “PCR forming units” (PFU) was introduced to clearly distinguish between copies being truly amplified during PCR and crude copy number estimates based on the measured DNA amount [30]. Based on this framework, the number of PFU per standard was calculated following the SIMQUANT assay [29]. SIMQUANT assumes a ratio of positive:negative PCR reactions of 7:3 (70% detection) during a series of PCR reactions with approximately 1 PFU. Accordingly, the standard containing 1 PFU was roughly identified and the DNA contents of the remaining standards were successively converted into respective PFU. These values were used to generate a calibration curve, where the mean Ct value for each standard (n = 7) was plotted as a function of the corresponding PFU. Subsequently, the LoD and LoQ were derived following the descriptions in Vrålstad et al. [28]. For a full description of the calculations for the LoD and LoQ, see S3 File. The software Real Plex 2.2 (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) and R for Mac version 3.0.2 [31] were used for data analysis and preparation of figures.
<table><caption>Table 2. Information on *A. pulchella* standards, their Ct values and detection frequency.</caption><thead><tr><th>Standard / dilution</th><th>DNA in standard (ng/µL)</th><th>DNA in PCR (ng)<sup>a</sup></th><th>Estimated PFU per PCR</th><th>Mean Ct value (± SD)</th><th>Detection frequency (%) during seven independent qPCR runs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1/4<sup>-1</sup></td><td>9.00 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>4.50</td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>10</sup></td><td>15.20 (± 0.39)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>2/4<sup>-2</sup></td><td>2.25 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.13</td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>9</sup></td><td>17.48 (± 0.34)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>3/4<sup>-3</sup></td><td>5.63 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>2.81 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>8</sup></td><td>19.61 (± 0.33)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>4/4<sup>-4</sup></td><td>1.41 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>7.03 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>7</sup></td><td>21.85 (± 0.48)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>5/4<sup>-5</sup></td><td>3.52 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.78 × 10<sup>-2</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>6</sup></td><td>23.85 (± 0.23)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>6/4<sup>-6</sup></td><td>8.79 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>4.39 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>5</sup></td><td>25.89 (± 0.18)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>7/4<sup>-7</sup></td><td>2.20 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>1.10 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>4</sup></td><td>27.94 (± 0.37)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>8/4<sup>-8</sup></td><td>5.49 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>2.75 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>3</sup></td><td>30.59 (± 0.52)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>9/4<sup>-9</sup></td><td>1.37 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>6.87 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>2</sup></td><td>32.30 (± 0.79)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>10/4<sup>-10</sup></td><td>3.43 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.72 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>1</sup></td><td>34.59 (± 0.60)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>11/4<sup>-11</sup></td><td>8.58 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>4.29 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.3</td><td>36.87 (± 1.00)</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>12/4<sup>-12</sup></td><td>2.15 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>1.07 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td><td>1.3 × 4<sup>-1</sup></td><td>39.25 (± 0.13)</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>13/4<sup>-13</sup></td><td>5.36 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>2.68 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>14/4<sup>-14</sup></td><td>1.34 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>6.71 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Negative control</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Dilution steps of *A. pulchella* extract with information on the amount of template DNA in standards as well as PCR runs, estimated PCR forming units (PFU) per PCR, Ct value (mean ± SD), and detection frequency during seven independent qPCR runs. Dashes: variables could not be quantified.

# Results and discussion

## Specificity and sensitivity of the qPCR assay

The molecular characterization of the fungal strains used during the present study revealed their genetic purity. However, there were some discrepancies between molecular characterization and morphological identification of the conidia (Table 1). This may be due to similar environmental pressures resulting in convergent conidial morphology reached by different conidiogenous processes in non-related species [8]. Additionally, there is growing concern about the taxonomic reliability of fungal DNA sequences in public sequence repositories (e.g., [32, 33]) with an estimated 20% of the entries being incorrectly identified at the species level [34].

Nevertheless, the theoretical specificity analysis of the assay, based on the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLASTn)-algorithm at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), resulted in a ≥ 99% query cover with the target species (e.g., GenBank Accession no. KF730806, E-value: 0.0, Identity: 100%). More importantly, sequences for species displaying the highest genetic similarity to *A. pulchella* showed ≥ 2 base mismatches at the target site for the probe (for description, see S4 File and S5 File; Figures A and B in S4 File). The only exception was found in *Flagellospora curvula* (GenBank Accession no. AY729939), which did not show any mismatch with the probe's sequence (Figure B in S4 File). A BLASTn-search conducted with the respective sequence, however, revealed a higher similarity to *Alatospora* sequences than to any other of the genus *Flagellospora*. Accordingly, a direct comparison of the doubtful *F. curvula* sequence with additional deposited sequences of the same species showed a high degree of mismatch, including the primer and probe regions (results not shown). Hence, it is likely that the *F. curvula* sequence was deposited under the wrong species name. Morphological misidentifications seem rather unlikely given the generally marked differences in size and shape of *Alatospora* and *Flagellospora* conidia [35, 36]. Also, publicly available sequences from

<footnote>a 5 µL template (per reaction) multiplied by the assigned concentration per µl</footnote>
morphologically-related species of the genus *Alatospora*, namely *A. acuminata*, *A. constricta*, and *A. flagellata*, displayed ≥ 2 base mismatches for the 12 base pair long probe sequence motif (Figure B in S4 File). In contrast, *A. pulchella* sequences showed no base substitution for the same motif. Therefore, false-positive amplifications for species of the exclusivity panel are highly unlikely given the high sensitivity of MGB probes towards mismatches at the annealing site [37, 38]. Additionally, mismatches were apparent for the forward primer-template pairs of species of the exclusivity panel (≥ 2 mismatches; Figure B in S4 File), further reducing the possibility of false-positive amplifications.

In agreement with this theoretical specificity, our results demonstrated that the species-specific primers and TaqMan probe fulfilled all requirements for the qPCR application as they exclusively amplified the target DNA for the strains of the exclusivity panel and this at a Ct value as low as 12.88 (Fig 1A and 1B; Table 1). None of the species included in the exclusivity panel showed a positive signal during the qPCR runs (Table 1). The empirical verification of the assay's specificity should ideally have covered a broader spectrum than 24 aquatic hyphomycete species. Nonetheless, as species with a close genetic relationship to *A. pulchella*—namely *A. acuminata*, and *A. flagellata* (Table A in S5 File)—did not show any positive signal during the qPCR runs, the developed method is reasonably specific at the species level.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** 1a and 1b. Fluorescence profiles for the 6-carboxy-fluorescein fluorophore (FAM) as a function of PCR cycle and time. Each tested species and the negative controls are represented by a different color. A signal was classified as true positive if it was substantially higher than the initial fluorescence baseline [39], which was set automatically and individually for each sample by the qPCR device. Please note that the higher Ct value of *A. pulchella* in Fig 1b resulted from an extract with less template DNA.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174634.g001
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 2. Standard curve for quantitative *A. pulchella* standards.** The standard curve (solid line) is displayed as mean Ct values (± SD; *n* = 7) of quantitative standards of *A. pulchella* (dilutions 4⁻¹ to 4⁻⁸; filled circles) as a function of the calculated number of PCR forming units (PFU) in each PCR reaction (linear model r² was 0.9994; *p* < 0.001). Non-quantitative calibrants (dilutions 4⁻⁹ to 4⁻¹²; open circles) that are not included in the standard curve are also visualized and connected by a dotted line. The limit of detection (LoD; 3 PFU; 9.9 fg DNA) and limit of quantification (LoQ; 47 PFU; 155.0 fg DNA) are indicated by arrows.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174634.g002

The method showed a high sensitivity for the target species. Calculations resulted in a LoD of 3 PFU corresponding to reliable detection down to 9.9 fg DNA. The quantitative range of the method covered the first eight standards (Fig 2; S3 File), where each standard differed by approximately two Ct units from the previous one indicating a four-fold difference in copy numbers as shown in Table 2 (cf. [40]). This demonstrates reliable quantification of DNA down to 47 PFU (= LoQ; 155.0 fg DNA; S3 File); the method is therefore feasible even with low target copy numbers. The quantitative measurements suggest a high reliability of the qPCR method with a high coefficient of determination (r² = 0.9994), low standard deviations of Ct values as well as repeatedly detected true-positive signals for the diluted extract down to a factor of 4⁻⁸ (Fig 2; Table 2). Hence, concerns by Vrålstad et al. [28] that such quantitative assessments strongly depend on the accuracy of the standard curve, the degree of measurement uncertainty and the precision of added standard volumes were of minor importance during the present study but should be taken into account during routine applications.

Finally, the assay also showed its high specificity in environmental samples (S2 File) containing diverse communities of aquatic hyphomycetes and bacteria [24] and likely including PCR inhibitors such as humic substances leaching from leaf litter [27, 41]. The leaf-associated microbial communities of two out of the three tested environmental samples (i.e., C2 and C3) did not contain the target species *A. pulchella*, since the Ct values of ≥38 indicated these peaks were below the assay's LoD and thus false-positives. The third sample (C1), on the other hand, contained a certain amount of target copies, revealed by a Ct value of 25.7 indicating 9.4–150 fg template DNA of *A. pulchella* (Table A in S2 File). This pattern was somewhat unexpected,
since the morphological identification of the aquatic hyphomycete community associated with the leaf material only revealed the presence of *A. acuminata* and not of *A. pulchella* [24]. This discrepancy may be due to misidentification, attributable to the high number of *Alatospora* conidia in the samples [24] and the similarity of the conidial morphologies of *A. acuminata* and *A. pulchella* [42]. Nevertheless, the assay demonstrated its specificity for *A. pulchella* by showing true-positive results when the target species was present and each standard differed on average by approximately four Ct values from the previous one indicating a 16-fold difference in copy numbers [40]. This is in accordance with the added amount of template DNA (Table A in S2 File).

## Applicability of the qPCR assay in leaf litter decomposition research

As highlighted earlier, molecular approaches overcome several shortcomings of traditional methods in leaf litter decomposition research. Our qPCR assay for *A. pulchella* is a proof-of-concept for the suitability of this technique. When additional species-specific protocols become available, this approach will allow a deeper understanding regarding the role of individual aquatic hyphomycete species in the leaf litter decomposition process. When linking aquatic hyphomycete diversity and ecosystem functioning, most previous studies have been limited in their ability to track performances of individual species within complex microbial assemblages (cf. [6]): simply knowing changing species numbers in the aquatic hyphomycete community and the overall ergosterol content does not necessarily explain shifts in microbial-mediated leaf litter decomposition (e.g., [43]). It is essential to assess the biomasses of individual species to uncover their contributions to ecosystem processes [44]. qPCR methods might bridge this gap, as the amount of DNA (representative for fungal biomass) for each species can be determined accurately. This procedure could allow estimating the contributions of individual species to total community performance and thereby lead to a better understanding of the potential linkages between fungal diversity and ecological functions during leaf litter decomposition. This approach is not limited to aquatic hyphomycetes but can be extended to other microbial groups typically ignored by traditional approaches but contributing to leaf litter decomposition (e.g., Chytridiomycetes, Oomycota and other fungus-like organisms [16]).

Furthermore, qPCR might result in a better mechanistic understanding of trophic coupling at the base of heterotrophic food webs. As shown, for instance, by Arsuffi and Suberkropp [23], shredders distinguish between fungal species on leaf litter, potentially triggered by the production of feeding stimulants or distasteful compounds. This concept was recently applied to explain fungicide-induced shifts in microorganism-mediated leaf palatability for *Gammarus fossarum* [3, 24], a key shredder in low-order streams of Europe [45]. The study of Zubrod et al. [3], however, was based on spore counts, which does not necessarily correlate with the biomass of the respective aquatic hyphomycete species [10]. Applying qPCR could result in deeper insights into shredder food preferences by estimates of single-species biomasses linked to prior knowledge of preferred species.

## Conclusions

The presented TaqMan qPCR assay showed its species-specificity and sensitivity—even for closely related species no false-positive results were observed. Most shortcomings associated with qPCR are controllable and/or avoidable, and the validity of the assay was shown for environmental samples. Thus, qPCR is a promising tool for a species-specific identification and quantification of microorganisms involved in the decomposition of leaf litter. However, the method's applicability will have to be further investigated by cross-validation based on an even broader spectrum of microorganisms.
**Supporting information**

S1 File. Description of DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing.
(DOCX)

S2 File. Description of the assays' validation for environmental samples
(DOCX)

S3 File. Calculation of the limit of detection and limit of quantification.
(DOCX)

S4 File. Theoretical validation of the qPCR assay's specificity.
(DOCX)

S5 File. Estimates of evolutionary divergences among sequences.
(DOCX)

**Acknowledgments**

We are grateful to Therese Bürgi, Jörn Panteleit, Revina-Rosa Resch, and Theresa Schell for laboratory assistance. Furthermore, we thank Christiane Baschien for providing aquatic hyphomycete strains.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** AF AS MB FB JC RS.

**Formal analysis:** AF AS MB.

**Funding acquisition:** MB RS.

**Investigation:** AF AS PB.

**Methodology:** AF AS MB.

**Resources:** FB PB JC.

**Writing – original draft:** AF AS MB.

**Writing – review & editing:** AF AS MB FB PB JC RS.

**References**

1. Bärlocher F. Freshwater fungal communities. In: Deighton J, Oudemans P, White J, editors. The fungal community: its organisation and role in the ecosystem. Florida, United States: CRC Press; 2005. p. 39–59.

2. Gessner MO, Gulis V, Kuehn KA, Chauvet E, Suberkropp K. Fungal decomposers of plant litter in aquatic ecosystems. In: Kubicek CP, Druzhinina IS, editors. Environmental and Microbial Relationships: Springer; 2007. p. 301–324.

3. Zubrod JP, Englert D, Feckler A, Koksharova N, Konschak M, Bundschuh R, et al. Does the current fungicide risk assessment provide sufficient protection for key drivers in aquatic ecosystem functioning? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015; 49:1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5050453 PMID: 25517729

4. Bundschuh M, Hahn T, Gessner MO, Schulz R. Antibiotics as a chemical stressor affecting an aquatic decomposer-detritivore system. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2009; 28:197–203. https://doi.org/10.1897/08-075.1 PMID: 18717623

5. Solé M, Fetzer I, Wennrich R, Sridhar KR, Harms H, Krauss G. Aquatic hyphomycete communities as potential bioindicators for assessing anthropogenic stress. Sci. Total. Environ. 2008; 389:557–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.010 PMID: 17931691
6. Fernandes I, Pascoal C, Cássio F. Intraspecific traits change biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning under metal stress. Oecologia. 2011; 166:1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1930-3 PMID: 21340615

7. Nikolcheva LG, Cockshutt AM, Bärlocher F. Determining diversity of freshwater fungi on decaying leaves: comparison of traditional and molecular approaches. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2003; 69:2548–2554.

8. Seena S, Pascoal C, Marvanová L, Cássio F. DNA barcoding of fungi: a case study using ITS sequences for identifying aquatic hyphomycete species. Fungal Divers. 2010; 44:77–87.

9. Bärlocher F. Molecular approaches applied to aquatic hyphomycetes. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2007; 21:19–24.

10. Bermingham S, Maltby L, Dewey FM. Use of immunoassays for the study of natural assemblages of aquatic hyphomycetes. Microb. Ecol. 1997; 33:223–229. PMID: 9115186

11. Gessner M, Bärlocher F, Chauvet E. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of aquatic hyphomycetes in streams. Fungal Diversity Research Series. 2003; 10:127–157.

12. Gessner MO, Chauvet E. Importance of stream microfungi in controlling breakdown rates of leaf litter. Ecology. 1994; 75:1807–1817.

13. Bermingham S, Maltby L, Cooke RC. A critical assessment of the validity of ergosterol as an indicator of fungal biomass. Mycol. Res. 1995; 99:479–484.

14. Bärlocher F. Aquatic hyphomycetes in a changing environment. Fungal Ecol. 2016; 19:14–27.

15. Raidl S, Bonfigli R, Agerer R. Calibration of quantitative real-time taqman PCR by correlation with hyphal biomass and ITS copies in mycelia of *Piloderma croceum*. Plant Biol. 2005; 7:713–717. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-873003 PMID: 16388475

16. Manerkar M, Seena S, Bärlocher F. Q-RT-PCR for assessing Archaea, Bacteria, and Fungi during leaf decomposition in a stream. Microb. Ecol. 2008; 56:467–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-008-9365-z PMID: 18264658

17. Yin JL, Shackel NA, Zekry A, McGuinness PH, Richards C, Van Der Putten K, et al. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for measurement of cytokine and growth factor mRNA expression with fluorogenic probes or SYBR Green I. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2001; 79:213–221. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1711.2001.01002.x PMID: 11380673

18. Smith CJ, Osborn AM. Advantages and limitations of quantitative PCR (Q-PCR)-based approaches in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2009; 67:6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00629.x PMID: 19120456

19. Wang X, Seed B. A PCR primer bank for quantitative gene expression analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31:e154. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gng154 PMID: 14654707

20. Thomas K, Chilvers G, Norris R. Aquatic hyphomycetes from different substrates: substrate preference and seasonal occurrence. Mar. Freshwater Res. 1992; 43:491–509.

21. Bärlocher F. Water-borne conidia of aquatic hyphomycetes: seasonal and yearly patterns in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada. Can. J. Bot. 2000; 78:157–167

22. Pascoal C, Marvanová L, Cássio F. Aquatic hyphomycete diversity in streams of Northwest Portugal. Fungal Divers. 2005; 19:109–128.

23. Arsuffi TL, Suberkropp K. Selective feeding by shredders on leaf-colonizing stream fungi: comparison of macroinvertebrate taxa. Oecologia. 1989; 79:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378236 PMID: 28312809

24. Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Kosol S, Maltby L, Stang C, Duester L, et al. Fungal composition on leaves explains pollutant-mediated indirect effects on amphipod feeding. Aquat. Toxicol. 2011; 104:32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2011.03.010 PMID: 21536010

25. Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S, Robert V, Spouge JL, Levesque CA, et al. Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for fungi. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2012; 109:6241–6246.

26. Higgins DG, Thompson JD, Gibson TJ. Using CLUSTAL for multiple sequence alignments. In: Russell FD, editor. Methods in Enzymology. Volume 266: Academic Press; 1996. p. 383–402. PMID: 8743695

27. Strand DA, Holst-Jensen A, Viljugrein H, Edvardsen B, Klaveness D, Jussila J, et al. Detection and quantification of the crayfish plague agent in natural waters: direct monitoring approach for aquatic environments. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2011; 95:9. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao02334 PMID: 21797031

28. Vrålstad T, Knutsen AK, Tengs T, Holst-Jensen A. A quantitative TaqMan® MGB real-time polymerase chain reaction based assay for detection of the causative agent of crayfish plague *Aphanomyces astaci*. Vet. Microbiol. 2009; 137:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.12.022 PMID: 19201113
29. Berdal KG, Bøydler C, Tengs T, Holst-Jensen A. A statistical approach for evaluation of PCR results to improve the practical limit of quantification (LOQ) of GMO analyses (SIMQUANT). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008; 227:1149-1157.

30. Holst-Jensen A, Berdal KG. The modular analytical procedure and validation approach and the units of measurement for genetically modified materials in foods and feeds. J. AOAC Int. 2004; 87:927-936. PMID: 15295887

31. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.

32. Bridge PD, Roberts PJ, Spooner BM, Panchal G. On the unreliability of published DNA sequences. New Phytol. 2003; 160:43-48.

33. Vilgalys R. Taxonomic misidentification in public DNA databases. New Phytol. 2003; 160:4-5.

34. Nilsson RH, Ryberg M, Kristiansson E, Abarenkov K, Larsson K-H, Köljalg U. Taxonomic reliability of DNA sequences in public sequence databases: A fungal perspective. PLoS ONE. 2006; 1:e59. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000059 PMID: 17183689

35. Ingold CT. Guide to aquatic hyphomycetes. Freshwater Biological Association. 1975; Scientific Publication No. 30.

36. Marvanová L, Descals E. New and critical taxa of aquatic hyphomycetes. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 1985; 91:1-23.

37. Yu Y, Lee C, Kim J, Hwang S. Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2005; 89:670-679. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20347 PMID: 15696537

38. Yao Y, Nellåker C, Karlsson H. Evaluation of minor groove binding probe and Taqman probe PCR assays: Influence of mismatches and template complexity on quantification. Mol. Cell. Probe. 2006; 20:311-316.

39. Tichopad A, Dilger M, Schwarz G, Pfaffl MW. Standardized determination of real-time PCR efficiency from a single reaction set-up. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31:e122. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gng122 PMID: 14530455

40. Berdal KG, Holst-Jensen A. Roundup Ready® soybean event-specific real-time quantitative PCR assay and estimation of the practical detection and quantification limits in GMO analyses. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2001; 213:432-438.

41. Stevenson FJ. Humus chemistry: genesis, composition, reactions. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.

42. Gulis V, Marvanová L, Descals E. An illustrated key to the common temperate species of aquatic hyphomycetes. In: Graça MAS, Maltby L, Calow P, editors. Methods to study litter decomposition: Springer; 2005. p. 153-67.

43. Zubrod JP, Feckler A, Englert D, Koksharova N, Rosenfeldt R, Seitz F, et al. Inorganic fungicides as routinely applied in organic and conventional agriculture can increase palatability but reduce microbial decomposition of leaf litter. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015; 52:310-322.

44. Duarte S, Pascoal C, Cássio F, Bärlocher F. Aquatic hyphomycete diversity and identity affect leaf litter decomposition in microcosms. Oecologia. 2006; 147:658-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0300-4 PMID: 16496184

45. Dangles O, Gessner MO, Guerold F, Chauvet E. Impacts of stream acidification on litter breakdown: implications for assessing ecosystem functioning. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004; 41:365-378.