Literature DB >> 21683272

Lack of effect of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile by glutamate dehydrogenase and polymerase chain reaction.

Simon D Goldenberg1, Maria Gumban, Anthony Hall, Amita Patel, Gary L French.   

Abstract

Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) is popular as a preliminary test for the detection of Clostridium difficile. Recent work has suggested that GDH sensitivity may vary according to ribotype and may be lower for ribotypes 002, 027, and 106 compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We investigated this effect using a dilution series of 64 isolates tested by GDH and Cepheid GeneXpert PCR. PCR was significantly more sensitive than GDH overall; however, there was no difference in detection according to specific ribotype. Crown
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2011        PMID： 21683272     DOI： 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.03.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN： 0732-8893            Impact factor:   2.803


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of GenomEra C. difficile and Xpert C. difficile as confirmatory tests in a multistep algorithm for diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Luis Alcalá; Elena Reigadas; Mercedes Marín; Antonia Fernández-Chico; Pilar Catalán; Emilio Bouza
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Glutamate dehydrogenase is highly conserved among Clostridium difficile ribotypes.

Authors:  R J Carman; K N Wickham; L Chen; A M Lawrence; J H Boone; T D Wilkins; T M Kerkering; D M Lyerly
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Clostridioides difficile ribotype 106: A systematic review of the antimicrobial susceptibility, genetics, and clinical outcomes of this common worldwide strain.

Authors:  T J Carlson; D Blasingame; A J Gonzales-Luna; F Alnezary; K W Garey
Journal:  Anaerobe       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.331

Review 4.  Laboratory Tests for the Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Karen C Carroll; Masako Mizusawa
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2020-02-25

Review 5.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: an ongoing conundrum for clinicians and for clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Carey-Ann D Burnham; Karen C Carroll
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 26.132

6.  Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile: real-time PCR detection of toxin genes in faecal samples is more sensitive compared to toxigenic culture.

Authors:  M B F Jensen; K E P Olsen; X C Nielsen; A M Hoegh; R B Dessau; T Atlung; J Engberg
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 3.267

7.  Premarket evaluations of the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 Assay and the BD Max Cdiff Assay.

Authors:  K A Stellrecht; A A Espino; V P Maceira; S M Nattanmai; S A Butt; D Wroblewski; G E Hannett; K A Musser
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Correlation between Clostridium difficile bacterial load, commercial real-time PCR cycle thresholds, and results of diagnostic tests based on enzyme immunoassay and cell culture cytotoxicity assay.

Authors:  Léa-Laurence Dionne; Frédéric Raymond; Jacques Corbeil; Jean Longtin; Philippe Gervais; Yves Longtin
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Evaluation of a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of glutamate dehydrogenase and toxin for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Heejung Kim; Wan Hee Kim; Myungsook Kim; Seok Hoon Jeong; Kyungwon Lee
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 3.464
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.