Comparison of H. pylori antigen titer and dPCR absolute quantification results
Among the total of 24 cultured bacterial suspensions, the antigen titer ranged from 8 to 256, with a median of 32 (Table 1). The dPCR quantification results ranged from 2.67 × 107 copies/mL to 2.04 × 109 copies/mL, with a median of log₁₀ = 8.61 (≈4.09 × 108 copies/mL) (Table 2). The relationship exhibited non-linear characteristics in the raw data, suggesting a power-law or exponential association, which justified the subsequent logarithmic transformations applied to both antigen titer and dPCR quantification values.
Linear association between log-transformed antigen titer and dPCR quantitative results
To test whether there is a significant correlation between the results of the two detection methods, we applied logarithmic transformation and performed Pearson correlation analysis, as both variables are approximately normally distributed after log transformation. As shown in Figure 1, after transformation, the antigen titer (log2-transformed) and the absolute quantitative result of dPCR (log10-transformed) exhibited a significant moderate positive linear correlation (r = 0.536, n = 24, P = 0.007).
Quantitative modeling of the relationship between antigen titer and dPCR copy number
To quantify the relationship between the two detection methods and assess the potential for mutual prediction, we applied linear regression analysis to the log-transformed data, so as to utilize the regression model to predict bacterial load through antigen titer in the future. The analysis reveals a linear relationship between log2 (antigen titer) and log10 (dPCR), yielding the equation: log10(dPCR) = 0.1588 × log2(titer) + 7.7988 (R2 = 0.287). The regression coefficients (with standard errors and 95% confidence intervals) were: slope 0.1588 ± 0.053 (95% CI 0.048–0.270) and intercept 7.7988 ± 0.292 (95% CI 7.193–8.404); the residual standard error was 0.318 log10 units, and the overall regression was significant (F(1,22) = 8.84, P = 0.007). This indicates that for every doubling of the antigen titer, the dPCR copy number only increases by 1.441 times (100.1588). However, for a given antigen titer, the 95% prediction interval of the dPCR results can span nearly two orders of magnitude (for example, at a titer of 1:32, the prediction interval is approximately 8.3 × 107 to 1.85 × 109copies/mL). This indicates that in practical applications, the antigen titer alone cannot accurately predict the copy number of nucleic acid in a single sample, but using this model may provide a coarse estimation of the order of magnitude for group-level comparisons, though it is limited for individual sample prediction due to the moderate explanatory power (R2 = 0.287).
Inter-platform variability of dPCR quantification and sensitivity analysis of the correlation
Interlaboratory variability was assessed on log10-transformed concentrations to account for the log-normal distribution of microbial quantification data. The CV% across the four platform-derived log10 concentrations ranged from 0.9% to 8.3% (median 1.8%, mean 2.5%) across 24 isolates. One outlier (Hp06, CV = 8.3%) showed a >30-fold discrepancy between Sniper (5.93 × 108 copies/mL) and TargetingOne (1.50 × 107 copies/mL); excluding this isolate, CVs ranged from 0.9% to 6.4%. To ensure that this outlier did not drive the observed antigen–dPCR correlation, a sensitivity analysis was performed excluding Hp06, which yielded r = 0.479, R2 = 0.230, and P = 0.021 (n = 23) — comparable to the primary analysis including all 24 isolates — confirming that the headline correlation does not depend on this isolate. This dispersion reflects systematic differences among platforms in extraction efficiency, reagent sensitivity, and instrument calibration rather than random measurement error, which supports cross-platform averaging to reduce platform-specific bias.
Defining and classifying results using dual-method thresholds
Based on the analyses above and on exploratory, dataset-specific criteria, this study set the median titer of antigen detection at 1:32 as the threshold for high antigen detection, due to the non-normal distribution of antigen titer data, and selected the actual median log₁₀(dPCR) = 8.61 (≈4.09 × 108 copies/mL) as the threshold for high nucleic acid content. These thresholds are exploratory, dataset-specific cutoffs derived from cultured isolate data and do not represent validated clinical diagnostic criteria. Consequently, any application of these cutoffs to other sample collections or analytical contexts would require re-derivation from the corresponding data rather than direct transfer.
Using the exploratory thresholds (antigen titer ≥ 1:32 as high, ≤ 1:16 as low; dPCR log₁₀ ≥ 8.61 as high nucleic acid load), the four-quadrant classification of the 24 cultured bacterial suspensions (Figure 2, Table 3) is as follows: 9 samples (Hp03, Hp04, Hp11, Hp13, Hp18, Hp19, Hp21, Hp22, Hp25) fall into the high antigen–high nucleic acid category (37.5%); 3 samples (Hp09, Hp26, Hp27) are classified as low antigen–high nucleic acid (12.5%); 8 samples (Hp01, Hp02, Hp05, Hp08, Hp10, Hp14, Hp15, Hp17) exhibit high antigen–low nucleic acid (33.3%); and 4 samples (Hp06, Hp07, Hp12, Hp20) belong to the low antigen–low nucleic acid category (16.7%). Because the 24 isolates were divided into six titer groups with an average of only 4 samples per group, formal inter-group comparison (e.g., Kruskal-Wallis testing) would lack sufficient statistical power; therefore, only descriptive summaries of dPCR quantitative results across titer groups are reported.
Residual viable fraction after heat inactivation (viability PCR)
To quantify residual viable bacteria following heat inactivation, a viability PCR reagent system was used for all 24 isolates. Briefly, each heat-inactivated suspension (200 µL) was incubated with the membrane-impermeable Viability PCR Reagent (10 µM final concentration) at 37 °C for 75 min, with a parallel reagent-omitted control (−VR) processed identically. The reagent was then chemically inactivated by adding Viability PCR Neutralization Buffer (20 µL, 10×) and incubating at room temperature for 15 min. Genomic DNA was extracted from both the +VR and −VR aliquots, and dPCR was performed on each extract; the viable fraction was calculated as the ratio of +VR to −VR copy numbers × 100%. The median viable fraction was 4.6% (range 0.00%–33.00%; full per-isolate results in Supplementary Table 2). The viable percentage did not correlate significantly with antigen titer (r = 0.03, P = 0.90) or with dPCR copy number (r = 0.37, P = 0.08).
DATA AVAILABILITY:
The 23S rRNA gene sequences of 24 Helicobacter pylori strains have been deposited in NCBI GenBank under BioProject accession PRJNA1520048. These sequences were used solely for strain identity confirmation and do not represent the dPCR quantification target, which is a manufacturer-proprietary conserved genomic region, as described in Protocol.
The raw kit-specific antigen titers from eight commercial colloidal gold immunochromatographic kits and the platform-specific dPCR quantitative values from four digital PCR instruments cannot be deposited in a public repository because of commercial sensitivity, manufacturer confidentiality agreements, and regulatory restrictions associated with CE-marked/National Medical Products Administration-approved in vitro diagnostic products.
Additional restricted data may be made available confidentially when necessary, subject to the applicable confidentiality and regulatory restrictions.

Figure 1: Correlation between Helicobacter pylori antigen titer and digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) quantification. A scatter plot with a regression line is presented to illustrate the relationship between antigen titer and DNA copy numbers in 24 cultured bacterial suspensions (n = 24). Antigen titers were ascertained via a colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay with visual reading. Serial dilutions of each sample were examined, and the titer is expressed as the highest dilution factor that yields a positive result (presented on the x-axis as log2-transformed, dimensionless values). DNA copy numbers were quantified through dPCR and are presented on the y-axis as log10-transformed concentrations (log10 copies/mL). Each dot represents an individual bacterial suspension sample. The blue solid line represents the linear regression fit. The shaded band around the regression line represents the 95% confidence interval of the fitted mean response. The dashed vertical and horizontal lines indicate the exploratory classification thresholds (log₂ titer = 5, i.e., 1:32; log₁₀ dPCR = 8.61, i.e., 4.09 × 108 copies/mL) used in Figure 2 and Table 3. Correlation was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient, resulting in r = 0.536, P = 0.007, R2 = 0.287, which indicates a statistically significant positive correlation between the two methods. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Analytical classification framework for H. pylori testing combining antigen test results with dPCR quantification. This figure depicts the four-quadrant classification of 24 cultured bacterial suspensions (n = 24) based on the concordance between immunochromatographic antigen titer and dPCR quantitative results. Using exploratory, dataset-specific thresholds (antigen titer ≥ 1:32 as high, ≤ 1:16 as low; dPCR log₁₀ ≥ 8.61 as high nucleic acid load), samples are classified into: high antigen–high nucleic acid (n = 9, 37.5%), high antigen–low nucleic acid (n = 8, 33.3%), low antigen–high nucleic acid (n = 3, 12.5%), and low antigen–low nucleic acid (n = 4, 16.7%). These thresholds are exploratory cutoffs derived from cultured isolate data and do not represent validated clinical diagnostic criteria. The classification framework illustrates the agreement and discordance between immunological and molecular detection methods. Categories with discrepancies may reflect factors such as antigen stability, bacterial viability, or DNA copy number variation. This framework is intended for analytical comparison purposes and does not constitute clinical diagnostic or treatment recommendations. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| No. | Detection reagent | Manufacturer |
| 1 | Helicobacter pylori antigen detection kit (colloidal gold method) | Bioneovan Co., Ltd |
| 2 | Gastric Helicobacter pylori (HP) Antigen Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold Method) | Shanghai Chemtron BIOTECH Co., Ltd |
| 3 | Helicobacter pylori antigen detection kit (colloidal gold method) | Jiangsu Mole Bioscience Co., Ltd |
| 4 | Helicobacter pylori antigen detection kit (colloidal gold method) | Hangzhou Genesis Biodetecton & Biocontrol Ltd |
| 5 | Helicobacter pylori antigen detection kit (colloidal gold method) | JIANGSU COWIN BIOTECH CO., LTD |
| 6 | Helicobacter pylori antigen detection reagent (latex method) | ABON Biopharm (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd |
| 7 | Helicobacter pylori (HP) antigen detection reagent (immunochromatographic method) | GUANGZHOU WONDFO BIOTECH CO., LTD |
| 8 | Helicobacter pylori antigen detection kit (colloidal gold method) | Beijing Core Technology Co., Ltd |
Table 1: List of Helicobacter pylori Antigen Detection Reagents and Their Manufacturers. The table enumerates eight commercially accessible immunochromatographic assays for the detection of H. pylori antigen, which were assessed in this study. For each product, the No. (as supplied by the manufacturer), the commercial designation of the detection reagent, and the manufacturer's name are presented. These kits were chosen on the basis of their extensive utilization in clinical diagnostics and point-of-care testing. All information was retrieved from the manufacturers' product inserts and official websites (accessed in March 2026). The inclusion of these reagents does not signify an endorsement; they are representative of the diversity of available tests.
| No. | Instrument model | Digital PCR Platforms |
| 1 | DQ24 | Sniper |
| 2 | Bio Rad QX200 Droplet Digital PCR | Jiangsu Bioperfectus Technologies Co., Ltd |
| 3 | DQ24 Pro | Ustar Biotechnologies (Hangzhou) Ltd |
| 4 | TD-1 Digital PCR System | TargetingOne |
Table 2: List of Digital PCR (dPCR) Platforms and Instrument Models. This table enumerates four laboratory platforms equipped with dPCR systems, along with the corresponding instrument models employed for testing. These platforms were chosen in consideration of their technological diversity and representativeness of the current implementation of dPCR. All information is provided by each respective platform. The inclusion of these platforms does not signify an endorsement; they simply represent the scope of existing dPCR systems.
| Type | Number of cases | Proportion | Sample number |
| High antigen - High nucleic acid | 9 | 37.5% | Hp03, Hp04, Hp11, Hp13, Hp18, Hp19, Hp21, Hp22, Hp25 |
| Low antigen - High nucleic acid | 3 | 12.5% | Hp09, Hp26, Hp27 |
| Low antigen - Low nucleic acid | 4 | 16.7% | Hp06, Hp07, Hp12, Hp20 |
| High antigen - Low nucleic acid | 8 | 33.3% | Hp01, Hp02, Hp05, Hp08, Hp10, Hp14, Hp15, Hp17 |
Table 3: Classification and Proportion of Antigen Test and Nucleic Acid Test Results in This Study. This table classifies 24 cultured bacterial suspensions according to the concordance between antigen titer (determined by immunochromatographic assay, expressed as the highest dilution factor resulting in a positive result) and absolute quantitative digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) results (expressed as log₁₀ copies/mL). Using an antigen titer cutoff of 1:32 (high ≥ 1:32, low ≤ 1:16) and a dPCR quantification cutoff of 4.09 × 108 copies/mL (log₁₀ = 8.61) as exploratory, dataset-specific thresholds, isolates were classified into four subgroups: High Antigen-High Nucleic Acid, Low Antigen–High Nucleic Acid, High Antigen–Low Nucleic Acid, and Low Antigen-Low Nucleic Acid. Among the 24 samples, 9 were categorized as High Antigen–High Nucleic Acid (37.5%; Hp03, Hp04, Hp11, Hp13, Hp18, Hp19, Hp21, Hp22, Hp25), 3 as Low Antigen–High Nucleic Acid (12.5%; Hp09, Hp26, Hp27), 8 as High Antigen–Low Nucleic Acid (33.3%; Hp01, Hp02, Hp05, Hp08, Hp10, Hp14, Hp15, Hp17), and 4 as Low Antigen–Low Nucleic Acid (16.7%; Hp06, Hp07, Hp12, Hp20). For each category, the table shows the number of cases (n), the proportion relative to the total sample size (%), and the sample numbers within each category. This classification illustrates the agreement and discordance between immunological and molecular detection methods; categories with discrepancies may reflect factors such as antigen stability, bacterial viability, or DNA copy number variation, offering insights for the interpretation of analytical test results.
Supplementary Table 1: Aggregated dataset of antigen detection and dPCR quantification for the 24 Helicobacter pylori isolates. Sheet 1 (Antigen Detection): per-kit endpoint titers from the eight commercial colloidal gold immunochromatographic kits for each isolate, with the per-sample minimum, median, and maximum titer and within-sample fold range. Sheet 2 (Digital PCR Quantitative Detection): platform-specific dPCR concentrations (copies/mL) for each isolate, with inter-platform summary statistics (median, minimum, maximum, and CV% of log₁₀-transformed concentrations). Sheet 3 (Correlation and Regression Analysis): strain-level log₂-transformed antigen titers and log₁₀-transformed dPCR concentrations, Pearson correlation and linear regression results (r, R2, regression equation), sensitivity analysis excluding the outlier Hp06, and detailed regression statistics (standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, residual standard error, F-statistic, and P-value). Kit-specific and platform-specific identifiers are anonymized for commercial confidentiality; the dataset contains all values required to reproduce Figures 1–2 and Table 3.Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Table 2: Viability PCR results for the 24 Helicobacter pylori isolates. Per-isolate dPCR copy numbers of the viability reagent–treated (+VR) and reagent-omitted (−VR) aliquots after heat inactivation at 56 °C for 25 min, with the calculated viable fraction (%) and equivalent ΔCq for each isolate. The median viable fraction across all isolates was 4.6% (range 0.00%–33.00%).Please click here to download this file.