| Literature DB >> 23586062 |
Surang Chankhamhaengdecha1, Piyapong Hadpanus, Amornrat Aroonnual, Puriya Ngamwongsatit, Darunee Chotiprasitsakul, Piriyaporn Chongtrakool, Tavan Janvilisri.
Abstract
Clostridium difficile poses as the most common etiologic agent of nosocomial diarrhea. Although there are many diagnostic methods to detect C. difficile directly from stool samples, the nucleic acid-based approach has been largely performed in several laboratories due to its high sensitivity and specificity as well as rapid turnaround time. In this study, a multiplex PCR was newly designed with recent accumulated nucleotide sequences. The PCR testing with various C. difficile ribotypes, other Clostridium spp., and non-Clostridium strains revealed 100% specificity with the ability to detect as low as ~22 genomic copy number per PCR reaction. Different combinations of sample processing were evaluated prior to multiplex PCR for the detection of C. difficile in fecal samples from hospitalized patients. The most optimal condition was the non-selective enrichment at 37 °C for 1 h in brain heart infusion broth supplemented with taurocholate, followed by the multiplex PCR. The detection limit after sample processing was shown as being 5 spores per gram of fecal sample. Two hundred and thirty-eight fecal samples collected from the University affiliated hospital were analyzed by the enrichment multiplex PCR procedure. The results suggested that the combination of sample processing with the high-performance detection method would be applicable for routine diagnostic use in clinical setting.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23586062 PMCID: PMC3613053 DOI: 10.1155/2013/875437
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Primers in the multiplex PCR for the detection of C. difficile.
| Target | Primer | Sequence (5′-3′) | Primer concentration ( | Amplicon size (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| tcdA-F | GTATGGATAGGTGGAGAAGTCAGTG | 0.025 | |
| tcdA-R | CGGTCTAGTCCAATAGAGCTAGGTC | 0.025 | 632 | |
|
| tcdB-F | GAAGATTTAGGAAATGAAGAAGGTGA | 0.01 | |
| tcdB-R | AACCACTATATTCAACTGCTTGTCC | 0.01 | 441 | |
|
| cdtA-F | ATGCACAAGACTTACAAAGCTATAGTG | 0.2 | |
| cdtA-R | CGAGAATTTGCTTCTATTTGATAATC | 0.2 | 260 | |
|
| cdtB-F | ATTGGCAATAATCTATCTCCTGGA | 0.5 | |
| cdtB-R | CCAAAATTTCCACTTACTTGTGTTG | 0.5 | 179 | |
|
| UFU-L | GCCTAACACATGCAAGTCGA | 0.025 | |
| UR802 | TACCAGGGTATCTAATCC | 0.025 | 800 |
Figure 1Agarose gel electrophoresis of the PCR products tested with five primer pairs using 20 ng of genomic DNA of C. difficile R20291 as template. Each primer pair was tested individually and in combination with all 5 primer pairs in the multiplex PCR. Lane M: 100-bp DNA ladder marker. Lanes 1–5, single-plex PCR reactions using primers specific to tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, cdtB, and 16s rDNA, respectively. Lane 6: multiplex PCR with all four toxin-specific primers and 16S rDNA primers.
Figure 2Multiplex PCR toxin gene amplification profiles of various C. difficile ribotypes. Lane M: 100 bp DNA ladder marker. The ribotypes and PCR products of detected genes are indicated.
Evaluation of pretreatment and enrichment conditions prior to multiplex PCR and bacterial cell culture for the detection of C. difficile directly from stool samples.
| Pretreatment condition | Enrichment condition | Incubation time (h) | Typical | Multiplex PCR toxin genes detection | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCFA agar plate | BHI agar plate | ||||
| Alcohol shock | BHIS/TA | 0 | − | − | − |
| 1 | − | − | + | ||
| 2 | − | ND | + | ||
| 3 | + | ND | + | ||
| BHIS/TA/CC | 0 | − | − | − | |
| 1 | − | − | + | ||
| 2 | − | ND | + | ||
| 3 | + | ND | + | ||
|
| |||||
| No alcohol shock | BHIS/TA | 0 | − | ND | − |
| 1 | −/+ | ND | + | ||
| 2 | + | ND | + | ||
| 3 | + | ND | + | ||
| BHIS/TA/CC | 0 | − | ND | − | |
| 1 | −/+ | ND | + | ||
| 2 | + | ND | + | ||
| 3 | + | ND | + | ||
ND stands for “not determined” because there were too many contaminated bacterial species, rendering it impossible to distinguish C. difficile colonies on the plates. −/+ indicates that typical C. difficile colonies could not be observed in at least one of the three replicates.
Comparison of different diagnostic assays including toxin EIA, multiplex PCR, and bacterial cell culture.
| Toxin EIA | Multiplex PCR | Bacterial cell culture | Number of cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| + | + | + | 16 |
| + | + | − | 4 |
| + | − | − | 18 |
| − | + | + | 10 |
| − | + | − | 24 |
| − | − | − | 166 |