$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
DNA extraction from representative environmental samples was performed using both the biological extraction field kit and a highly validated laboratory-based method previously described4. As shown in Figure 4, successful completion of DNA isolation using the field kit was confirmed when comparing qPCR results to a highly validated laboratory-based extraction method. This consistency confirms that the method preserved the DNA integrity of environmental samples in the field.
The components of the field qPCR kit are shown in Figure 5. Analysis of a standard culture dilution of Dehalococcoides (DHC) using the field qPCR unit was performed at both indoor (21 °C) and outdoor (30 °C) temperatures to illustrate the robustness of the instrument under real-world field conditions. The results, seen in Figure 6, highlight the low deviation for 10 different repetitions of each. For full context, DHC is an organism capable of degrading chlorinated solvents and is commonly quantified via qPCR within the environmental remediation industry4.
To validate the precision of the instruments, DHC was analyzed at three different concentrations using ten field qPCR instruments performed in duplicates (Figure 7). Even at low abundances, the relative standard deviation remained low (below 5%) across all runs. Note that, compared to standard deviation, relative standard deviation is important for logarithmic data as it normalizes the results through the following equation:

Where RSD is Relative Standard Deviation, σ is the standard deviation of the dataset, and µ is the mean of the dataset.
Together, both methods within this paper provide reproducible results across replicate field extractions and qPCR assays. The agreement between field and laboratory extractions and qPCR analysis demonstrates that reliable, high-quality data can be obtained without reliance on laboratory infrastructure, enabling microbial analyses to be carried out in remote or resource-limited environments.

Figure 1: Encapsulated filter kit components. The encapsulated filter is used to filter biomass out of the water sample. By connecting to a peristaltic pump via tubing, water is pushed through the filter. After notating the total volume of water, the water is discarded and the biomass collected on the filter is ready for DNA extraction. Components: a. sterile tube that holds the filter and components before and after use, b. inlet cap, c. hose clamp, d. luer-locking tubing connection adapter, e. encapsulated filter, f. rubber outlet cap. Image used with permission from Microbial Insights, Inc.12. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Filter and tubing connection. The tubing is pushed over the luer-locking tubing connection adapter and is held in place using the hose clamp. The other end of the tubing is connected to a peristaltic pump (this connection and the pump operation are outside the scope of this protocol). Image used with permission from Microbial Insights, Inc.12. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: DNA isolation field kit components. All components are sterile prior to use. The components include: (1) encapsulated filter kit (see Figure 1 for more details), (2) 3 mL syringe, (3) 1 mL syringe pre-loaded with Solution A, capped, (4) 1 mL syringe pre-loaded with Solution B, capped, (5) 3 mL syringe, (6) silicone bead tube, (7) 1 mL syringe fitted with isolation column, (8) 1 mL disposable transfer pipette, (9) DNA isolation sample prep cartridge, (10) 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube. Not pictured: parafilm squares for sealing during shaking, and alcohol prep wipes used to clean the surface used for extraction. Image used with permission from Microbial Insights, Inc.12. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Field extraction comparison using real-world samples. Comparative qPCR results of DNA isolated from two representative samples using a laboratory method (red bars) versus the biological extraction field kit (blue bars). These were not analyzed in replicate, as would be expected in a standard qPCR analysis. Gene targets (x-axis) show abundance (y-axis) within an order of magnitude for both methods. Information on each specific gene target is not included as it is outside of the scope of this paper. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Field-based qPCR instrument and components. The components include: A. The Field-based qPCR instrument, B. sample prep tray, C. assay strip containing lyophilized reagents, D. phone pre-loaded with application used to run the instrument. Image used with permission from Microbial Insights, Inc.12. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Demonstration of field qPCR robustness. Dehalococcoides (DHC) standard analyzed in ten replicates under outdoor (30 °C, red bars) and indoor (21 °C, blue bars) temperature conditions, highlighting the reliability of the instrument for the field. Replicate run number is listed along the x-axis and the calculated DHC abundance is listed along the y-axis. The Inside (20 °C) mean was calculated to be 4.92 × 10² cell/mL, SD = 1.14 × 10² cells/mL (n = 10), and the Outside (30 °C) mean was calculated to be 5.89 × 10² cells/mL, SD = 1.80 × 10² cell/mL (n = 10). Measurements obtained at 20 °C and 30 °C did not differ significantly (Welch's t-test, p = 0.17). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Demonstration of field qPCR precision. Precision performance between 10 different instruments, run in duplicate at three different standard concentrations. The true value and replicate number (n = 2 for 10 instruments at each standard concentration) is listed along the x-axis, with colored bars specific to the field unit. The y-axis shows the calculated abundance for each run. Percent relative standard deviation for each standard concentration is shown in the dotted lines above the bars. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.