Literature DB >> 23990137

Pneumocystis jirovecii (Pj) quantitative PCR to differentiate Pj pneumonia from Pj colonization in immunocompromised patients.

M Maillet1, D Maubon, J P Brion, P François, L Molina, J P Stahl, O Epaulard, A Bosseray, P Pavese.   

Abstract

Conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in respiratory samples does not differentiate between Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) and Pneumocystis jirovecii (Pj) colonization. We used Pj real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) with the objective to discriminate PCP from Pj colonization in immunocompromised patients. All positive Pj qPCR [targeting the major surface glycoprotein (MSG) gene] obtained in respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients presenting pneumonia at the Grenoble University Hospital, France, were collected between August 2009 and April 2011. Diagnoses were retrospectively determined by a multidisciplinary group of experts blinded to the Pj qPCR results. Thirty-one bronchoalveolar lavages and four broncho aspirations positive for the Pj qPCR were obtained from 35 immunocompromised patients. Diagnoses of definite, probable, and possible PCP, and pneumonia from another etiology were retrospectively made for 7, 4, 5, and 19 patients, respectively. Copy numbers were significantly higher in the "definite group" (median 465,000 copies/ml) than in the "probable group" (median 38,600 copies/ml), the "possible group" (median 1,032 copies/ml), and the "other diagnosis group" (median 390 copies/ml). With the value of 3,160 copies/ml, the sensitivity and specificity of qPCR for the diagnosis of PCP were 100 % and 70 %, respectively. With the value of 31,600 copies/ml, the sensitivity and specificity were 80 % and 100 %, respectively. The positive predictive value was 100 % for results with more than 31,600 copies/ml and the negative predictive value was 100 % for results with fewer than 3,160 copies/ml. qPCR targeting the MSG gene can be helpful to discriminate PCP from Pj colonization in immunocompromised patients, using two cut-off values, with a gray zone between them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23990137      PMCID: PMC7101903          DOI: 10.1007/s10096-013-1960-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis        ISSN: 0934-9723            Impact factor:   3.267


Introduction

The incidence of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients has decreased since the introduction of chemoprophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy [1]; meanwhile, the incidence of PCP in non-HIV immunocompromised patients is increasing [2]. The standard laboratory method to diagnose PCP remains the microscopic identification of Pneumocystis jirovecii (Pj) by staining methods in respiratory samples. However, studies highlighted the low burden of Pj in non-HIV immunocompromised patients [3] and the lack of sensitivity of microscopic methods [4]. This justifies the increasing use of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for diagnosis [5, 6]. The detection of Pj in individuals presenting without pneumonia or with pneumonia from another etiology has been defined as colonization or “carriage” [7]. Conventional Pj PCR is qualitative and very sensitive, but does not differentiate between active PCP and Pj colonization. The aim of this study was to use Pj real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) in order to differentiate PCP and Pj colonization in immunocompromised patients.

Patients and methods

Patients and clinical samples

All positive Pj qPCR obtained in respiratory samples from immunosuppressed patients presenting with pneumonia at the Grenoble University Hospital, France, were collected between August 2009 and April 2011. We retrospectively studied the clinical histories of the concerned patients.

Clinical data

The collected clinical data included: age, sex, underlying diseases, immunosuppression therapy during the previous months, PCP prophylaxis, clinical symptoms, routine laboratory data, anti-pneumocystis treatment, stay in a critical care unit, mechanical ventilation, hypoxemia (PaO2 < 70 mmHg in room air or requirement for supplemental oxygen), use of other anti-infectious agents, and outcome.

Staining methods

The bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and broncho aspirations samples were stained and examined by a qualified microscopist at the Laboratory of Parasitology-Mycology, with 400 μl of fluid analyzed by Fast Giemsa and 800 μl observed after Gomori–Grocott staining.

Real-time qPCR

A DNA extract solution from each sample was tested with a Pj qPCR targeting the major surface glycoprotein (MSG) gene of Pj as previously described [4, 8]. The results were expressed as the number of MSG copies/ml of BAL fluid.

Diagnosis of Pj pneumonia and Pj colonization

A group of six experts, including three infectious diseases specialists, one internist, one hematologist, and one mycologist, classified the clinical histories of these patients in one of the following categories: definite, probable, and possible PCP, or other diagnosis (case definitions in Table 1). The experts were blinded to the Pj PCR results.
Table 1

Diagnosis definitions used by the experts

Definite PCP- clinical signs of progressive pneumonia
- ground glass opacities in chest computed tomography
- microscopical identification of Pj with Musto or RAL staining methods
Probable PCP- clinical signs of progressive pneumonia
- ground glass opacities in chest computed tomography
- complete resolution of symptoms after a full course of anti-PCP treatment
- absence of microscopical identification of Pj with staining methods
Possible PCP- clinical signs of progressive pneumonia and:
- either compatible radiological signs
- or complete resolution of symptoms after anti-PCP treatment
- absence of microscopical identification of Pj with staining methods
Other diagnosisnone of the above criteria

The “definite PCP” and “probable PCP” groups were then re-assigned to the “final diagnosis of PCP” group, and the “possible PCP” and “other diagnosis” groups were re-assigned to the “non-PCP” group in order to construct a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve

Diagnosis definitions used by the experts The “definite PCP” and “probable PCP” groups were then re-assigned to the “final diagnosis of PCP” group, and the “possible PCP” and “other diagnosis” groups were re-assigned to the “non-PCP” group in order to construct a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with the StatView software (for Windows, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for copy numbers was constructed and used to define cut-off values in order to discriminate the definite and probable PCP groups from the colonized group (possible PCP group and other diagnosis). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Youden’s index (Se + Sp − 1) was calculated for each cut-off value, as well as the number of correctly classified patients, in order to determine an optimal cut-off value.

Results

Thirty-one BAL samples and four broncho aspirations with positive Pj qPCR were obtained from 35 immunocompromised patients. Broncho aspirations were used when BAL could not be performed. All of these patients had clinical presentations such as fever, cough, sputum, or dyspnea, and suspected pneumonia. Seven patients met all the criteria for definite PCP, four patients for probable PCP, and five for possible PCP; another diagnosis was finally made for 19 patients. Prophylaxis therapy was used in one of the 35 patients (2 %). All definite, possible, and probable patients had received anti-PCP treatment. Microscopic examination was positive in 8 of 32 samples of BAL fluid samples (one patient’s retained diagnosis was allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis).

Clinical features

The clinical features for each group are described in Table 2. There was no statistical difference between the four groups.
Table 2

Clinical features

CharacteristicsDefinite PCPa (n = 7)Probable PCP (n = 4)Possible PCP (n = 5)Other diagnosisd (n = 19) p-Value
Age, years66 (47–69)66 (52–75)65 (60–67)49 (42–66)0.34
Male sex3 (43 %)1 (25 %)2 (40 %)9 (47 %)0.874
Underlying disease
 Hematological malignancy4 (57 %)4 (100 %)4 (80 %)13 (68 %)0.46
 Solid malignancy1 (14 %)0 (0 %)0 (0 %)1 (5 %)0.68
 Organ transplantation0 (0 %)0 (0 %)0 (0 %)4 (21 %)0.28
 HIVb infection2 (29 %)0 (0 %)0 (0 %)1 (5 %)0.2
 Inflammatory disease0 (0 %)0 (0 %)1 (20 %)0 (0 %)0.1
 Corticosteroids2 (29 %)1 (25 %)2 (40 %)4 (21 %)0.85
 Anti-tumor chemotherapy2 (29 %)2 (50 %)2 (40 %)11 (58 %)0.59
 Immunosuppressive agents other than corticosteroids or chemotherapy1 (14 %)1 (25 %)2 (40 %)3 (16 %)0.64
 PCP prophylaxis0 (0 %)0 (0 %)0 (0 %)1 (5 %)0.83
 Hypoxia7 (100 %)3 (75 %)5 (100 %)11 (58 %)0.19
 Stay in ICUc 2 (29 %)2 (50 %)0 (0 %)5 (26 %)0.39
 Anti-PCP treatment7 (100 %)4 (100 %)5 (100 %)12 (63 %)0.06
 Mechanical ventilation2 (29 %)0 (0 %)0 (0 %)5 (26 %)0.38
Laboratory findings
 Leucocytes, /mm3 2,100 (1,700–9,825)7,150 (6,600–8 750)9,100 (750–10 025)3,700 (2,325–5,900)0.4
 Neutrophils, /mm3 1,400 (1,125–5,650)5,850 (5,200–7,250)4,650 (1,800–8,150)2,600 (2,200–5,525)0.28
 Lymphocytes, /mm3 400 (225–600)950 (450–1,300)400 (350–2,150)500 (225–800)0.77
 C-reactive protein, mg/dl11.8 (2.6–17.9)10.5 (4.95–14.1)10.7 (4.5–20)9.3 (3.9–6.2)0.99
 Creatinine, mg/dl0.8 (0.61–1)0.84 (0.74–1.37)0.71 (0.6–1.3)0.97 (0.63–1.1)0.91
 Death0 (0 %)0 (0 %)0 (0 %)3 (16 %)0.43

Data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range)

a Pneumocystis pneumonia

bHuman immunodeficiency virus

cIntensive care unit

dThe “other diagnoses” group included bacterial pneumonia (n = 2), atypical pneumonia (n = 2), influenza virus pneumonia (n = 1), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to sepsis (n = 1), candidemia (n = 1), bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (n = 1), drug-induced pneumonia (n = 1), bronchial hamartoma (n = 1), multifactorial pulmonary fibrosis (n = 1), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (n = 1), pulmonary lymphoma (n = 2), and undetermined (n = 5)

Clinical features Data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range) a Pneumocystis pneumonia bHuman immunodeficiency virus cIntensive care unit dThe “other diagnoses” group included bacterial pneumonia (n = 2), atypical pneumonia (n = 2), influenza virus pneumonia (n = 1), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to sepsis (n = 1), candidemia (n = 1), bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (n = 1), drug-induced pneumonia (n = 1), bronchial hamartoma (n = 1), multifactorial pulmonary fibrosis (n = 1), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (n = 1), pulmonary lymphoma (n = 2), and undetermined (n = 5) qPCR copy numbers were significantly higher in the definite group (median 465,000 copies/ml, range 99,900–750,290,000) than in the probable group (median 38,600 copies/ml, range 7,750–148,982) and the possible group (median 1,032 copies/ml, range 731–13,000) or the other diagnosis group (median 390 copies/ml, range 145–2,833) (Fig. 1). The difference was significant between the four groups (p < 0.0001).
Fig. 1

Box and whisker plots of Pneumocystis jirovecii copy numbers according to patient group. The boxes contain 50 % of the sample data, with the median value indicated by a horizontal bar

Box and whisker plots of Pneumocystis jirovecii copy numbers according to patient group. The boxes contain 50 % of the sample data, with the median value indicated by a horizontal bar ROC curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.97 (Fig. 2), confirming the ability of qPCR to discriminate PCP from colonization. The sensitivity and specificity of qPCR on BAL fluids for discrimination between PCP and colonization were estimated with different qPCR cut-off values. Two cut-off values were determined to give 100 % positive and negative predictive values, with a gray zone between them. The estimated cut-off values were 31,600 and 3,160 copies/ml, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of qPCR for the diagnosis of PCP are specified in Fig. 2 for each cut-off value. The Youden’s index and the rate of correctly classified patients for each cut-off value provided an optimal cut-off value of 36,100 copies/ml for the diagnosis of PCP (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2

Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of P. jirovecii copy numbers for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). The arrows indicate cut-off values of 3,160 copies/ml, and 31,600 copies/ml

Fig. 3

Rate of correctly classified patients and Youden’s index for each cut-off value

Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of P. jirovecii copy numbers for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). The arrows indicate cut-off values of 3,160 copies/ml, and 31,600 copies/ml Rate of correctly classified patients and Youden’s index for each cut-off value

Discussion

The diagnostic performance of the microscopic visualization of Pj is dependent on the quality and type of sample, the number of organisms, and the experience of the microscopist [9]. The higher sensitivity of PCR for Pj detection has been demonstrated previously [4]. The main risk of using conventional PCR for the diagnosis of PCP is a positive result for colonized patients having pneumonia from another etiology [7, 10–17]. In this study, we observed that the qPCR results in the probable PCP group were significantly higher than those in the possible PCP group and in the group with another etiology, and were significantly lower than those in the definite PCP group. These results suggest that qPCR can help discriminate PCP from colonization and are in concordance with the hypothesis that the burden of Pj is lower in colonized people than in patients with PCP [18]. This is particularly interesting for non-HIV-infected immunocompromised patients, who often present with PCP with a low burden of Pj organisms and may not be diagnosed using microscopic examination [3]. qPCR values between 3,160 and 31,600 copies/ml fall within a gray zone, in which curative or prophylactic treatment should be discussed individually. It included nine out of the 35 (25 %) patients. Nevertheless, the Youden’s index and the rate of correctly classified patients allowed determining the optimal cut-off value of 31,600 copies/ml, maximizing the accuracy for the diagnosis of PCP. A recent study concluded that early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for the survival of PCP patients without HIV infection [19], suggesting that a rapid and accurate PCP diagnosis method such as qPCR should be used in these patients with a low burden of Pj. In our study, the cut-off value of 3,160 copies/ml would have avoided 13 of 17 (76 %) treatments prescribed to patients whose final diagnosis was not PCP. This cut-off would allow physicians to stop probabilistic treatment, and, therefore, limit adverse effects, cost of treatment, and development of resistances [7, 20]. A meta-analysis showed that PCR has good diagnosis accuracy and may be a useful tool for the diagnosis of PCP in immunocompromised patients [21]. Previous studies determined various cut-offs of qPCR targeting different genes to discriminate PCP from colonization: for MSG gene, Larsen et al. proved that a cut-off value of 50 copies/tube for qPCR in oral-wash samples increased the specificity for diagnosis of PCP to 100 % [18]. Flori et al.’s study established that a cut-off of 103 copies of DNA per capillary of BAL (PCR targeting the MSG gene) increased the specificity from 84.9 to 98.6 % with 100 % sensitivity [4]. Other studies highlighted the usefulness of qPCR in discriminating colonization from PCP: Alanio et al. proposed two cut-off values (120 and 1,900 trophic forms equivalents/ml) with a qPCR targeting the mitochondrial large subunit ribosomal RNA gene [22]; for Matsumura et al., the value of 1,300 copies/ml distinguished PCP from colonization with a sensitivity of 100 % and a specificity of 80 %, using qPCR targeting the DHPS (dihydropteroate synthase) gene [23]. We need to consider limitations when interpreting our results: this is a single-center study, the number of patients is relatively small, and we combined the data from the BAL and the broncho aspiration samples to evaluate the qPCR. Without a test capable of confirming or excluding the diagnosis of PCP, the classification of patients is uncertain. However, one quality of our study is that patients were classified by a multidisciplinary group of experts, ruling by consensus in view of all the clinical and complementary data. The fact that the experts did not know the qPCR results avoids classification bias. In spite of the small number of patients, the observed differences between the groups are statistically significant, which suggests that these differences are important. In our study, we used qPCR targeting the MSG gene, which is appropriate in discuss PCP diagnosis: the sensitivity is excellent, and it has been proved that qPCR analysis and the MSG target have the highest specificity compared with other PCR assays [24]. We can note that the rate of anti-pneumocystis prophylaxis was very low in our population. There is no current recommendation for anti-PCP prophylaxis or empirical therapy for non-HIV immunocompromised patients. It is known that colonization can sometimes lead to the development of PCP [7]. We propose to treat patients with a high probability of PCP and Pj burdens in the gray zone, and to monitor patients with low burdens and low probability of PCP with biological markers such as β-D-glucan, while prescribing a prophylactic treatment [23, 25, 26]. The proportion of patients having a hematological malignancy was very high in our population. We hypothesize that cut-off values may differ with the underlying diseases and may vary from one center to another. In conclusion, our study shows that our qPCR targeting the MSG gene in respiratory samples can help discriminate PCP from pneumonia with Pj colonization in immunocompromised patients, using two cut-off values of 3,160 and 31,600 copies/ml, with a gray zone between them. Cut-off values should be determined for each laboratory and each population of patients.
  26 in total

1.  Clinical significance of quantifying Pneumocystis jirovecii DNA by using real-time PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from immunocompromised patients.

Authors:  Françoise Botterel; Odile Cabaret; Françoise Foulet; Catherine Cordonnier; Jean-Marc Costa; Stéphane Bretagne
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Pneumocystis pneumonia.

Authors:  Charles F Thomas; Andrew H Limper
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Pneumocystis jirovecii colonization in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases: prevalence, risk factors of colonization and outcome.

Authors:  Arsene Mekinian; Isabelle Durand-Joly; Pierre-Yves Hatron; Olivier Moranne; Guillaume Denis; Eduardo Dei-Cas; Sandrine Morell-Dubois; Marc Lambert; David Launay; Laurence Delhaes; Eric Hachulla; Viviane Queyrel
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2010-11-18       Impact factor: 7.580

Review 4.  Pneumocystis infections: the iceberg?

Authors:  E Dei-Cas
Journal:  Med Mycol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.076

5.  Pneumocystis infection: unraveling the colonization-to-disease shift.

Authors:  Enrique J Calderon; Eduardo Dei-Cas
Journal:  Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.091

6.  Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for the survival of Pneumocystis pneumonia patients without human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Asai; Shinji Motojima; Yoshihiro Ohkuni; Ryo Matsunuma; Kei Nakashima; Takuya Iwasaki; Tamao Nakashita; Yoshihito Otsuka; Norihiro Kaneko
Journal:  J Infect Chemother       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 2.211

7.  Asymptomatic carriage of Pneumocystis jiroveci in subjects undergoing bronchoscopy: a prospective study.

Authors:  N A Maskell; D J Waine; A Lindley; J C T Pepperell; A E Wakefield; R F Miller; R J O Davies
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.139

8.  Use of real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia in immunocompromised patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hanssa Summah; Ying-Gang Zhu; Matthew E Falagas; Evridiki K Vouloumanou; Jie-Ming Qu
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.628

9.  Pneumocystis colonization is highly prevalent in the autopsied lungs of the general population.

Authors:  Carolina A Ponce; Myriam Gallo; Rebeca Bustamante; Sergio L Vargas
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 9.079

10.  Trends in hospitalizations for AIDS-associated Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in the United States (1986 to 2005).

Authors:  Colleen F Kelley; William Checkley; David M Mannino; Carlos Franco-Paredes; Carlos Del Rio; Fernando Holguin
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 9.410

View more
  24 in total

1.  Performances of Four Real-Time PCR Assays for Diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia.

Authors:  Milène Sasso; Elsa Chastang-Dumas; Sophie Bastide; Sandrine Alonso; Catherine Lechiche; Nathalie Bourgeois; Laurence Lachaud
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Standardization of Nucleic Acid Tests for Clinical Measurements of Bacteria and Viruses.

Authors:  Jernej Pavšič; Alison S Devonshire; Helen Parkes; Heinz Schimmel; Carole A Foy; Maria Karczmarczyk; Ion Gutiérrez-Aguirre; Isobella Honeyborne; Jim F Huggett; Timothy D McHugh; Mojca Milavec; Heinz Zeichhardt; Jana Žel
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Impact of HIV Infection Status on Interpretation of Quantitative PCR for Detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii.

Authors:  M Louis; J Guitard; M Jodar; T Ancelle; D Magne; O Lascols; C Hennequin
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in immunocompromised patients by real-time PCR: a 4-year prospective study.

Authors:  Florence Robert-Gangneux; Sorya Belaz; Matthieu Revest; Pierre Tattevin; Stéphane Jouneau; Olivier Decaux; Sylviane Chevrier; Yves Le Tulzo; Jean-Pierre Gangneux
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  The prevalence of laboratory-confirmed Pneumocystis jirovecii in HIV-infected adults in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicola K Wills; David S Lawrence; Elizabeth Botsile; Mark W Tenforde; Joseph N Jarvis
Journal:  Med Mycol       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 4.076

Review 6.  Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Risks and Prophylaxis Recommendations.

Authors:  Shunsuke Mori; Mineharu Sugimoto
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med       Date:  2015-09-06

7.  Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia following everolimus treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Kelvin Teck-Hong Kuik; Jason Trubiano; Leon J Worth; Nur-Shirin Harun; Daniel Steinfort; Douglas Johnson
Journal:  Med Mycol Case Rep       Date:  2014-09-16

8.  The incidence, mortality and timing of Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia after hematopoietic cell transplantation: a CIBMTR analysis.

Authors:  K M Williams; K W Ahn; M Chen; M D Aljurf; A L Agwu; A R Chen; T J Walsh; P Szabolcs; M J Boeckh; J J Auletta; C A Lindemans; J Zanis-Neto; M Malvezzi; J Lister; J S de Toledo Codina; K Sackey; J L H Chakrabarty; P Ljungman; J R Wingard; M D Seftel; S Seo; G A Hale; B Wirk; M S Smith; B N Savani; H M Lazarus; D I Marks; C Ustun; H Abdel-Azim; C C Dvorak; J Szer; J Storek; A Yong; M R Riches
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 5.483

9.  Risk factors for mortality from pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in non-HIV patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yao Liu; Lili Su; Shu-Juan Jiang; Hui Qu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-08-04

10.  Development and validation of a Pneumocystis jirovecii real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia.

Authors:  Deirdre L Church; Anshula Ambasta; Amanda Wilmer; Holly Williscroft; Gordon Ritchie; Dylan R Pillai; Sylvie Champagne; Daniel G Gregson
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.471

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.