Figure 1.
Bd diagnostic methods have changed over time.
(A) Initial histological and immunohistological approaches rapidly have given way to PCR methods, especially qPCR. (B) At first, Bd was diagnosed by collecting toe-clips, sloughed skin, and other tissues but assaying Bd infection by swabbing began in 2006 and quickly became the predominant sampling method. Publication data from Science Citation Index, Zoological Record, and Google Scholar.
Table 1.
Infection status of subjects and prevalence estimates based on qPCR of DNA extracted from swabs and filtered zoospores taken at 24 h and 16 days.
Figure 2.
Number of ITS-1 copies collected by filters and swabs.
DNA was extracted using DNeasy kits (A) and PrepMan Ultra (B) for both swabs and filters. (−) denotes negative Bd diagnosis. Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits. Ordinate scale differs below and above axis break.
Table 2.
Infection status of subjects dependent on PCR method of swab samples taken at 24 h and 16 days.
Figure 3.
Zoospores released by infected subjects, represented as zoospore genomic equivalents (ZGEs), each day over a 5-day collection period.
ZGEs are log-transformed.
Table 3.
Prevalence and infection intensity as determined in the field by zoospore filtering method.