| Literature DB >> 22623887 |
Hervé Meder1, Anne Baumstummler, Renaud Chollet, Sophie Barrier, Monika Kukuczka, Frédéric Olivieri, Esther Welterlin, Vincent Beguin, Sébastien Ribault.
Abstract
Microbiological contamination of process waters is a current issue for pharmaceutical industries. Traditional methods require several days to obtain results; therefore, rapid microbiological methods are widely requested to shorten time-to-result. Milliflex Quantum was developed for the rapid detection and enumeration of microorganisms in filterable samples. It combines membrane filtration to universal fluorescent staining of viable microorganisms. This new alternative method was validated using European and United States Pharmacopeia definitions, with sterile water and/or sterile water artificially contaminated with microorganisms. The Milliflex Quantum method was demonstrated to be reliable, robust, specific, accurate, and linear over the whole range of assays following these guidelines. The Milliflex Quantum system was challenged to detect natural contaminants in different types of pharmaceutical purified process waters. Milliflex Quantum was demonstrated to detect accurately contaminants 3- to 7-fold faster than traditional membrane filtration method. The staining procedure is nondestructive allowing downstream identification following a positive result. The Milliflex Quantum offers a fast, sensitive, and robust alternative to the compendial membrane filtration method.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22623887 PMCID: PMC3353274 DOI: 10.1100/2012/234858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Determination of the robust incubation time range required to detect collection strains with the Milliflex Quantum method (n = 10).
| Microorganism | Robust incubation time range | Fluorescence recovery ± SD | ANOVA | Viability recovery ± SD (%) | ANOVA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 22 h–26 h | 102 ± 38 | 0.66 | 101 ± 39 | 0.75 |
|
| 28 h–32 h | 99 ± 18 | 0.71 | 97 ± 19 | 0.66 |
|
| 14 h–18 h | 98 ± 18 | 0.20 | 101 ± 15 | 0.28 |
|
| 22 h–26 h | 91 ± 26 | 0.33 | 92 ± 26 | 0.34 |
|
| 22 h–26 h | 112 ± 21 | 0.78 | 100 ± 18 | 0.13 |
|
| 12 h–16 h | 128 ± 33 | 0.06 | 117 ± 27 | 0.33 |
|
| 16 h–20 h | 111 ± 28 | 0.91 | 103 ± 24 | 0.16 |
|
| 9 h–10 h | 111 ± 23 | 0.44 | 102 ± 21 | 0.40 |
|
| 8 h–10 h | 122 ± 29 | 0.06 | 111 ± 24 | 0.44 |
|
| 28 h–32 h | 90 ± 17 | 0.16 | 102 ± 17 | 0.10 |
ANOVA, One-way analysis of variance; ATCC, American Type Culture Collection; SD, Standard deviation.
Figure 1Determination of the robust incubation time range required to detect Aspergillus brasiliensis with the Milliflex Quantum method (n = 10). Fluorescence recovery (■, solid line); viability recovery (●, dashed line). Standard deviation is denoted by the vertical bars (delineated with—for viability standard deviation).
Accuracy results obtained with Candida albicans: comparison between fluorescence and viability results obtained with the Milliflex Quantum method and compendial method results (n = 10).
| Microorganism | Incubation time | Target concentration (CFU) | Fluorescence count mean ± SD (CFU) | Fluorescence recovery ± SD (%) | Student's two samples | Viability count mean ± SD (CFU) | Viability recovery ± SD (%) | Student's two samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | NA | NA | 0.0 ± 0.0 | NA | NA | ||
| 5 | 6.2 ± 2.9 | 102 ± 61 | 0.93 | 6.2 ± 2.9 | 102 ± 60 | 0.93 | ||
|
| 22 h | 25 | 24.9 ± 5.4 | 101 ± 29 | 0.93 | 24.2 ± 5.6 | 98 ± 30 | 0.83 |
| 50 | 62.7 ± 10.4 | 98 ± 22 | 0.73 | 62.2 ± 10.1 | 97 ± 21 | 0.64 | ||
| 75 | 102.0 ± 6.3 | 101 ± 10 | 0.68 | 101.4 ± 5.5 | 101 ± 9 | 0.82 | ||
| 100 | 163.9 ± 15.3 | 102 ± 15 | 0.65 | 161.7 ± 14.7 | 101 ± 14 | 0.87 |
ATCC, American Type Culture Collection; CFU, Colony-forming unit; NA, Not applicable; SD, Standard deviation.
Linearity, range and limit of quantification results obtained with the Milliflex Quantum method: analysis done using data generated for the accuracy testing of the Milliflex Quantum method, comparison between fluorescence and viability results (n = 10).
| Microorganism | Linearity | Range (CFU) | Limit of Quantification (CFU) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescence | Fluorescence linear regression slope | Viability | Viability linear regression slope | Fluorescence | Viability | Fluorescence lowest count mean | Viability lowest count mean | Lowest mean count with compendial method | |
|
| 0.98 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 1.01 | 0 to 163 | 0 to 161 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
|
| 0.95 | 1.09 | 0.96 | 1.10 | 0 to 124 | 0 to 120 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
|
| 0.96 | 1.16 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0 to 121 | 0 to 97 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
|
| 0.95 | 1.06 | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0 to 120 | 0 to 114 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
ATCC, American Type Culture Collection; CFU, Colony-forming unit.
Detection of microorganisms in pharmaceutical waters: comparison between fluorescence and viability results obtained with Milliflex Quantum and compendial method results (n = 10). “a” and “b” are 2 different types of waters, sampled in the same pharmaceutical plant.
| Water | Tested volume | Incubation time | Fluorescence count mean ± SD (CFU) | Fluorescence recovery ± SD (%) | Viability count mean ± SD (CFU) | Viability recovery ± SD (%) | Incubation time | Count mean ± SD (CFU) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 mL | 40 h | 248.3 ± 31.0 | 113 ± 19 | 196.3 ± 21.5 | 89 ± 14 | 5 days | 248.3 ± 31.0 |
| 2 | 10 mL | 24 h | 105.4 ± 8.0 | 110 ± 11 | 98.8 ± 8.8 | 103 ± 11 | 5 days | 95.8 ± 6.0 |
| 3a | 10−2 mL | 30 h | 21.6 ± 5.0 | 72 ± 19 | 22.8 ± 6.4 | 76 ± 24 | 7 days | 29.9 ± 3.9 |
| 3b | 10−2 mL | 24 h | 30.6 ± 2.7 | 77 ± 15 | 30.6 ± 1.7 | 77 ± 14 | 7 days | 39.9 ± 7.1 |
| 4a | 10−1 mL | 24 h | 179.7 ± 5.5 | 95 ± 7 | 178.3 ± 11.5 | 95 ± 9 | 5 days | 188.7 ± 12.9 |
| 4b | 50 mL | 30 h | 24.0 ± 3.0 | 74 ± 19 | 27.7 ± 4.7 | 86 ± 24 | 5 days | 32.3 ± 7.0 |
| 5 | 1 mL | 26 h | 21.8 ± 8.5 | 109 ± 55 | 17.0 ± 5.1 | 85 ± 37 | 5 days | 20.0 ± 6.4 |
CFU, Colony-forming unit; SD, Standard deviation.
Figure 2Detection of contaminants in pharmaceutical process water: comparison between fluorescence counts obtained with the Milliflex Quantum method (dashed) and counts obtained with the compendial method (solid grey) (n = 5). Standard deviation is denoted by the vertical bars.
Figure 3Detection of contaminants in pharmaceutical process water. (a) Fluorescence recovery (●, solid line); viability recovery (▲, dashed line). Viability recoveries were calculated comparing CFU count after a 14-day incubation with both methods. Each viability recovery is placed on the plot with the incubation time before staining with Milliflex Quantum as abscissa value. (b) Example of picture taken after staining of membrane incubated for 4 days on R2A plate at 32.5°C.