Literature DB >> 12354800

Detection of campylobacter species: a comparison of culture and polymerase chain reaction based methods.

S P Kulkarni1, S Lever, J M J Logan, A J Lawson, J Stanley, M S Shafi.   

Abstract

AIMS: To investigate the optimal method for the detection of campylobacters from stool samples by comparing selective culture with membrane filtration and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
METHODS: Three hundred and forty three stool samples were investigated by each of the three methods mentioned above. Selective culture was performed with charcoal cefoperazone desoxycholate agar plates. Membrane filtration was performed using cellulose triacetate membranes with 0.45 micro m pores placed on blood agar plates. Enteropathogenic campylobacters were detected using a PCR identification algorithm, consisting of screening PCRs and species identification using a PCR enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA), both based on the 16S rRNA gene.
RESULTS: Of the 343 samples tested, 23 were positive by one or more method. Of these, 17 were positive by selective culture, 12 by membrane filtration, and 20 by the PCR identification algorithm. A total of 18 of 23 positives were identified as C jejuni and/or C coli by the PCR identification algorithm, compared with 14 identified to the genus level by selective culture, and 10 by membrane filtration. Among the remaining five positive samples, one C hyointestinalis was detected only by the PCR identification algorithm; one C upsaliensis was detected only by the PCR identification algorithm; one Campylobacter sp was detected by membrane filtration and selective culture and later identified as C concisus; one Campylobacter sp was detected by membrane filtration alone and later identified as Arcobacter sp; and one Campylobacter sp detected only by selective culture was lost to study and therefore not speciated. There was no significant difference between detection by selective culture and the other two methods. However, detection by PCR was significantly better than by membrane filtration (0.05 > p > 0.02).
CONCLUSION: The PCR identification algorithm can detect and identify Campylobacter spp to the species level and the result is obtained on the same day. However, PCR is expensive, labour intensive, and does not provide an isolate for further identification or typing. Selective culture is as good as the PCR identification algorithm for the detection of the two most common species, C jejuni and C coli, and it is cheap and practical. However, it does miss the less common species, results take 48 hours, and identification is only to the genus level. Membrane filtration showed a low sensitivity compared with the other methods and is not appropriate for the diagnostic laboratory, although it was the only method to detect the Arcobacter sp. The optimum method for the detection of campylobacters from stool samples in the diagnostic laboratory remains selective culture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12354800      PMCID: PMC1769764          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.55.10.749

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  29 in total

1.  Rapid identification of Campylobacter, Arcobacter, and Helicobacter isolates by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the 16S rRNA gene.

Authors:  S M Marshall; P L Melito; D L Woodward; W M Johnson; F G Rodgers; M R Mulvey
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Detection of campylobacter in gastroenteritis: comparison of direct PCR assay of faecal samples with selective culture.

Authors:  A J Lawson; M S Shafi; K Pathak; J Stanley
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 2.451

3.  Campylobacter enteritis: a "new" disease.

Authors:  M B Skirrow
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1977-07-02

4.  Acute enteritis due to related vibrio: first positive stool cultures.

Authors:  P Dekeyser; M Gossuin-Detrain; J P Butzler; J Sternon
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1972-04       Impact factor: 5.226

5.  Large-scale survey of Campylobacter species in human gastroenteritis by PCR and PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Authors:  A J Lawson; J M Logan; G L O'neill; M Desai; J Stanley
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Diarrhea due to Campylobacter fetus subspecies jejuni. A clinical review of 63 cases.

Authors:  A A Drake; M J Gilchrist; J A Washington; K A Huizenga; R E Van Scoy
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 7.616

7.  DNA relatedness and biochemical features of Campylobacter spp. isolated in central and South Australia.

Authors:  T W Steele; N Sangster; J A Lanser
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Isolation of "Campylobacter hyointestinalis" from a human.

Authors:  C L Fennell; A M Rompalo; P A Totten; K L Bruch; B M Flores; W E Stamm
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Campylobacter hyointestinalis associated with human gastrointestinal disease in the United States.

Authors:  P Edmonds; C M Patton; P M Griffin; T J Barrett; G P Schmid; C N Baker; M A Lambert; D J Brenner
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  The use of membrane filters applied directly to the surface of agar plates for the isolation of Campylobacter jejuni from feces.

Authors:  T W Steele; S N McDermott
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 5.306

View more
  28 in total

1.  Optimal detection of Campylobacter spp in stools.

Authors:  A J Lastovica; E Le Roux
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Detection of Campylobacter spp. in chicken fecal samples by real-time PCR.

Authors:  Marianne Lund; Steen Nordentoft; Karl Pedersen; Mogens Madsen
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Steak tartare endocarditis.

Authors:  Michael J A Reid; Evan Michael Shannon; Sanjiv M Baxi; Peter Chin-Hong
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-02-25

4.  The internal transcribed spacer region, a new tool for use in species differentiation and delineation of systematic relationships within the Campylobacter genus.

Authors:  Si Ming Man; Nadeem O Kaakoush; Sophie Octavia; Hazel Mitchell
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Lack of negative effects on Syrian hamsters and Mongolian gerbils housed in the same secondary enclosure.

Authors:  Kathleen R Pritchett-Corning; Brianna N Gaskill
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 6.  Global Epidemiology of Campylobacter Infection.

Authors:  Nadeem O Kaakoush; Natalia Castaño-Rodríguez; Hazel M Mitchell; Si Ming Man
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 26.132

7.  Evaluation of culture methods and a DNA probe-based PCR assay for detection of Campylobacter species in clinical specimens of feces.

Authors:  Majella Maher; Cathriona Finnegan; Evelyn Collins; Brid Ward; Cyril Carroll; Martin Cormican
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Identification of thermotolerant campylobacter species by fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Authors:  Sven Poppert; Michaela Haas; Tatjana Yildiz; Thomas Alter; Edda Bartel; Ursula Fricke; Andreas Essig
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Rapid detection of Campylobacter coli, C. jejuni, and Salmonella enterica on poultry carcasses by using PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Authors:  Yang Hong; Mark E Berrang; Tongrui Liu; Charles L Hofacre; Susan Sanchez; Lihua Wang; John J Maurer
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  Feasibility of a molecular screening method for detection of Salmonella enterica and Campylobacter jejuni in a routine community-based clinical microbiology laboratory.

Authors:  T Schuurman; R F de Boer; E van Zanten; K R van Slochteren; H R Scheper; B G Dijk-Alberts; A V M Möller; A M D Kooistra-Smid
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2007-09-05       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.