PURPOSE: This study is aimed to determine the utility of various polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods in vitreous fluids (VFs) for detecting the infectious genomes in the diagnosis of infectious endophthalmitis in terms of sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: This prospective and consecutive analysis included a total of 66 VFs that were submitted for the microbiological evaluation, which were obtained from 66 clinically diagnosed endophthalmitis patients presented between November 2010 and October 2011 at the tertiary eye care referral centre in South India. Part of the collected VFs were subjected to cultures and smears, and the remaining parts were utilized for five PCR methods: uniplex, nested, semi-nested, multiplex and nested multiplex after extracting DNA, using universal eubacterial and Propionibacterium acnes species-specific primer sets targeting 16S rRNA gene in all bacteria and P. acnes, and panfungal primers, targeting 28S rRNA gene in all fungi. RESULTS: Of the 66 VFs, five (7.5%) showed positive results in smears, 16 (24%) in cultures and 43 (65%) showed positive results in PCRs. Among the 43 positively amplified VFs, 10 (15%) were positive for P. acnes genome, one for panfungal genome and 42 (62%) for eubacterial genome (including 10 P. acnes positives). Among 42 eubacterial-positive VFs, 36 were positive by both uniplex (first round) and multiplex (first round) PCRs, while nested (second round) and nested multiplex (second round) PCRs produced positive results in 42 and 41 VFs, respectively. Of the 43 PCR-positive specimens, 16 (37%) had positive growth (15 bacterial and one fungal) in culture. Of 50 culture-negative specimens, 27 (54%) were showed positive amplification, of which 10 were amplified for both P. acnes and eubacterial genomes and the remaining 17 were for eubacterial genome alone. CONCLUSIONS: Nested PCRs are superior than uniplex and multiplex PCR. PCRs proved to be a powerful tool in the diagnosis of endophthalmitis, especially for detecting uncultured microbes.
PURPOSE: This study is aimed to determine the utility of various polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods in vitreous fluids (VFs) for detecting the infectious genomes in the diagnosis of infectious endophthalmitis in terms of sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: This prospective and consecutive analysis included a total of 66 VFs that were submitted for the microbiological evaluation, which were obtained from 66 clinically diagnosed endophthalmitispatients presented between November 2010 and October 2011 at the tertiary eye care referral centre in South India. Part of the collected VFs were subjected to cultures and smears, and the remaining parts were utilized for five PCR methods: uniplex, nested, semi-nested, multiplex and nested multiplex after extracting DNA, using universal eubacterial and Propionibacterium acnes species-specific primer sets targeting 16S rRNA gene in all bacteria and P. acnes, and panfungal primers, targeting 28S rRNA gene in all fungi. RESULTS: Of the 66 VFs, five (7.5%) showed positive results in smears, 16 (24%) in cultures and 43 (65%) showed positive results in PCRs. Among the 43 positively amplified VFs, 10 (15%) were positive for P. acnes genome, one for panfungal genome and 42 (62%) for eubacterial genome (including 10 P. acnes positives). Among 42 eubacterial-positive VFs, 36 were positive by both uniplex (first round) and multiplex (first round) PCRs, while nested (second round) and nested multiplex (second round) PCRs produced positive results in 42 and 41 VFs, respectively. Of the 43 PCR-positive specimens, 16 (37%) had positive growth (15 bacterial and one fungal) in culture. Of 50 culture-negative specimens, 27 (54%) were showed positive amplification, of which 10 were amplified for both P. acnes and eubacterial genomes and the remaining 17 were for eubacterial genome alone. CONCLUSIONS: Nested PCRs are superior than uniplex and multiplex PCR. PCRs proved to be a powerful tool in the diagnosis of endophthalmitis, especially for detecting uncultured microbes.
Authors: David E Kuo; Maggie M Wei; Karen R Armbrust; Jared E Knickelbein; Ian Y L Yeung; Robert B Nussenblatt; Chi-Chao Chan; Hatice Nida Sen Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Aaron Y Lee; Lakshmi Akileswaran; Michael D Tibbetts; Sunir J Garg; Russell N Van Gelder Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Frederick C Miller; Phillip S Coburn; Mursalin Md Huzzatul; Austin L LaGrow; Erin Livingston; Michelle C Callegan Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 21.198