Literature DB >> 25122859

Laboratory detection of Clostridium difficile in piglets in Australia.

Daniel R Knight1, Michele M Squire1, Thomas V Riley2.   

Abstract

Clostridium difficile is a well-known enteric pathogen of humans and the causative agent of high-morbidity enteritis in piglets aged 1 to 7 days. C. difficile prevalence in Australian piglets is as high as 70%. The current diagnostic assays have been validated only for human infections, and there are no published studies assessing their performance in Australian piglets. We evaluated the suitability of five assays for detecting C. difficile in 157 specimens of piglet feces. The assays included a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LMIA)-PCR for tcdA (illumigene C. difficile; Meridian), a real-time PCR for tcdB (GeneOhm Cdiff; Becton Dickinson), two-component enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) (EIA-GDH) and TcdA/TcdB (EIA-TcdA/TcdB) (C. diff Quik Chek; Alere), and direct culture (DC) (C. difficile chromID agar; bioMérieux). The assays for detection of the organism were compared against enrichment culture (EC), and assays for detection of toxins/toxin genes were compared against EC followed by PCR for toxin genes (toxigenic EC [TEC]). The recovery of C. difficile by EC was 39.5% (n = 62/157), and TEC revealed that 58.1% (n = 36/62) of isolates were positive for at least one toxin gene (tcdA/tcdB). Compared with those for EC/TEC, the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were, respectively, as follows: DC, 91.9, 100.0, 100.0, and 95.0%; EIA-GDH, 41.9, 92.6, 78.8, and 71.0%; EIA-TcdA/TcdB, 5.6, 99.2, 66.7, and 77.9%; real-time PCR, 42.9, 96.7, 78.9, and 85.4% and LMIA-PCR, 25.0, 95.9, 64.3, and 81.1%. The performance of the molecular methods was poor, suggesting that the current commercially available assays for diagnosis of C. difficile in humans are not suitable for use in piglets. C. difficile recovery by the DC provides a cost-effective alternative.
Copyright © 2014, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25122859      PMCID: PMC4313215          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01225-14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  40 in total

1.  Evaluation of diagnostic tests for Clostridium difficile infection.

Authors:  Jonathan Swindells; Nigel Brenwald; Nathan Reading; Beryl Oppenheim
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Validation of a commercial enzyme immunoassay for detection of Clostridium difficile toxins in feces of horses with acute diarrhea.

Authors:  C E Medina-Torres; J S Weese; H R Staempfli
Journal:  J Vet Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 3.333

3.  Evaluation of a test for Clostridium difficile toxins A and B for the diagnosis of neonatal swine enteritis.

Authors:  Karen W Post; B Helen Jost; J Glenn Songer
Journal:  J Vet Diagn Invest       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.279

Review 4.  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

5.  Acquisition of Clostridium difficile by piglets.

Authors:  N E M Hopman; E C Keessen; C Harmanus; I M J G Sanders; L A M G van Leengoed; E J Kuijper; L J A Lipman
Journal:  Vet Microbiol       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  Longitudinal investigation of Clostridium difficile shedding in piglets.

Authors:  J Scott Weese; Terra Wakeford; Richard Reid-Smith; Joyce Rousseau; Robert Friendship
Journal:  Anaerobe       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 3.331

7.  Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches.

Authors:  Fred C Tenover; Susan Novak-Weekley; Christopher W Woods; Lance R Peterson; Thomas Davis; Paul Schreckenberger; Ferric C Fang; Andre Dascal; Dale N Gerding; Jim H Nomura; Richard V Goering; Thomas Akerlund; Alice S Weissfeld; Ellen Jo Baron; Edith Wong; Elizabeth M Marlowe; Joseph Whitmore; David H Persing
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  Identification of nonspecific reactions in laboratory rodent specimens tested by Rotazyme rotavirus ELISA.

Authors:  M N Jure; S S Morse; D M Stark
Journal:  Lab Anim Sci       Date:  1988-06

9.  Cross-sectional study reveals high prevalence of Clostridium difficile non-PCR ribotype 078 strains in Australian veal calves at slaughter.

Authors:  Daniel R Knight; Sara Thean; Papanin Putsathit; Stan Fenwick; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 4.792

10.  Comparison of ChromID C. difficile agar and cycloserine-cefoxitin-fructose agar for the recovery of Clostridium difficile.

Authors:  Lusiana V Boseiwaqa; Niki F Foster; Sara K Thean; Michele M Squire; Thomas V Riley; Kerry C Carson
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.306

View more
  7 in total

1.  Immunochromatographic test and ELISA for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and A/B toxins as an alternative for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile-associated diarrhea in foals and neonatal piglets.

Authors:  Carolina Pantuzza Ramos; Emily Oliveira Lopes; Carlos Augusto Oliveira Júnior; Amanda Nádia Diniz; Francisco Carlos Faria Lobato; Rodrigo Otávio Silveira Silva
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2020-05-03       Impact factor: 2.476

2.  Nationwide surveillance study of Clostridium difficile in Australian neonatal pigs shows high prevalence and heterogeneity of PCR ribotypes.

Authors:  Daniel R Knight; Michele M Squire; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  High Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in Home Gardens in Western Australia.

Authors:  Nirajmohan Shivaperumal; Barbara J Chang; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 4.792

4.  Evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection in dogs.

Authors:  Carolina Pantuzza Ramos; Amanda Nádia Diniz; Suzana Martins Leite; Francisco Carlos Faria Lobato; Silvia Trindade Pereira; Mário Cesar Rennó; Eliane de Oliveira Ferreira; Rodrigo Otávio Silveira Silva
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 2.214

5.  High prevalence of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in public space lawns in Western Australia.

Authors:  Peter Moono; Su Chen Lim; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Clostridioides difficile infection and One Health: an equine perspective.

Authors:  Natasza M R Hain-Saunders; Daniel R Knight; Mieghan Bruce; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 5.476

7.  Prevalence of binary toxin positive Clostridium difficile in diarrhoeal humans in the absence of epidemic ribotype 027.

Authors:  Alan M McGovern; Grace O Androga; Daniel R Knight; Mark W Watson; Briony Elliott; Niki F Foster; Barbara J Chang; Thomas V Riley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.