Evaluation of molecular-based methods for the detection and quantification of Cryptosporidium spp. in wastewater

Cryptosporidium poses significant public health risks as a cause of waterborne disease worldwide. Clinical surveillance of cryptosporidiosis is largely underreported due to the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections, clinical misdiagnoses, and barriers to access testing. Wastewater surveillance overcomes these limitations and could serve as an effective tool for identifying cryptosporidiosis at the population level. Despite its potential, the lack of standardized wastewater surveillance methods for Cryptosporidium spp. challenges implementation design and the comparability between studies. Thus, this study compared and contrasted Cryptosporidium wastewater surveillance methods for concentrating wastewater oocysts, extracting oocyst DNA, and detecting Cryptosporidium genetic markers. The evaluated concentration methods included electronegative membrane filtration, Envirocheck HV capsule filtration, centrifugation, and Nanotrap Microbiome Particles, with and without additional immunomagnetic separation purification (except for the Nanotrap Microbiome Particles). Oocyst DNA extraction by either the DNeasy Powersoil Pro kit and the QIAamp DNA Mini kit were evaluated and the impact of bead beating and freeze-thaw pretreatments on DNA recoveries was assessed. Genetic detection via qPCR assays targeting either the Cryptosporidium 18S rRNA gene or the Cryptosporidium oocyst wall protein gene were tested. Oocyst recovery percentages were highest for centrifugation (39–77 %), followed by the Nanotrap Microbiome Particles (24 %), electronegative filtration with a PBST elution (22 %), and Envirocheck HV capsule filtration (13 %). Immunomagnetic separation purification was found to be unsuitable due to interference from the wastewater matrix. Bead-beating pretreatment enhanced DNA recoveries from both the DNeasy Powersoil Pro kit (314 gc/μL DNA) and the QIAamp DNA Mini kit (238 gc/μL DNA). In contrast, freeze-thaw pretreatment reduced DNA recoveries to under 92 gc/μL DNA, likely through DNA degradation. Finally, while both qPCR assays were specific to Cryptosporidium spp., the 18S rRNA assay had a 5-fold lower detection limit and could detect a wider range of Cryptosporidium spp. than the Cryptosporidium oocyst wall protein assay.