| Literature DB >> 26814642 |
Fernando José Vicenzi1, Marcelo Pillonetto2, Helena Aguilar Peres Homem de Mello de Souza3, Jussara Kasuko Palmeiro4, Carlos Antônio Riedi5, Nelson Augusto Rosario-Filho5, Libera Maria Dalla-Costa4.
Abstract
Cystic fibrosis (CF) patients with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) pulmonary infections have high morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare different methods for identification of Bcc species isolated from paediatric CF patients. Oropharyngeal swabs from children with CF were used to obtain isolates of Bcc samples to evaluate six different tests for strain identification. Conventional (CPT) and automatised (APT) phenotypic tests, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-recA, restriction fragment length polymorphism-recA, recA sequencing, and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) were applied. Bacterial isolates were also tested for antimicrobial susceptibility. PCR-recA analysis showed that 36 out of the 54 isolates were Bcc. Kappa index data indicated almost perfect agreement between CPT and APT, CPT and PCR-recA, and APT and PCR-recA to identify Bcc, and MALDI-TOF and recA sequencing to identify Bcc species. The recA sequencing data and the MALDI-TOF data agreed in 97.2% of the isolates. Based on recA sequencing, the most common species identified were Burkholderia cenocepacia IIIA (33.4%),Burkholderia vietnamiensis (30.6%), B. cenocepaciaIIIB (27.8%), Burkholderia multivorans (5.5%), and B. cepacia (2.7%). MALDI-TOF proved to be a useful tool for identification of Bcc species obtained from CF patients, although it was not able to identify B. cenocepacia subtypes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26814642 PMCID: PMC4727434 DOI: 10.1590/0074-02760150314
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz ISSN: 0074-0276 Impact factor: 2.743
Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) identification data obtained by using different methodologies
| Patient | Isolate | CPT | APT | PCR
| Seq.RecA PubMLST Bcc database | MALDI-TOF | Allele
| RFLP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BC-48-FC |
|
| Bcc |
|
| 15 | F |
| BC-5-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 37 | E | |
| 2 | BC-28-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | F |
| BC-54-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | F | |
| 3 | BC-25-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A |
| 4 | BC-32-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A |
| 5 | BC-46-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | C |
| 6 | BC-10-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A |
| BC-15-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A | |
| 7 | BC-1-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 81 | D |
| BC-20-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 81 | D | |
| 8 | BC-11-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H |
| BC-18-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-19-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-21-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-29-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-42-FC | Inconclusive | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-58-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-59-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| BC-7-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 23 | H | |
| 9 | BC-27-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | F |
| 10 | BC-33-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A |
| BC-3-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A | |
| 11 | BC-36-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A |
| BC-56-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | C | |
| BC-60-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | C | |
| BC-61-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 122 | C | |
| 12 | BC-2-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 48 | I |
| 13 | BC-50-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 48 | I |
| 14 | BC-22-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 15 | F |
| 15 | BC-34-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A |
| BC-38-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A | |
| BC-39-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A | |
| BC-41-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A | |
| BC-57-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 14 | A | |
| 16 | BC-52-FC | Bcc | Bcc | Bcc |
|
| 49 | B |
a: exact recA allele match; APT: automated phenotypic tests; CPT: conventional phenotypic tests; MALDI-TOF: matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; RFLP: restriction fragment length polymorphism.
Evaluation of agreement among methods
| Tests (n) | k | SE | Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPT vs. APT (54) | 0.833 | 0.080 | Almost perfect agreement |
| CPT vs. | 0.833 | 0.080 | Almost perfect agreement |
| APT vs. | 0.921 | 0.055 | Almost perfect agreement |
| MALDI-TOF vs. | 0.942 | 0.057 | Almost perfect agreement |
| RFLP | 0.592 | 0.099 | Moderate agreement |
a: number of isolates tested by each test;b: adapted interpretation criteria (Landis & Koch 1977);c: amplification of recA;d: sequencing of recA;e: HaeIII-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) recA; APT: automated phenotypic tests; CPT: conventional phenotypic tests; k: kappa index; MALDI-TOF: matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; SE: standard error.
A comparative assessment of automated phenotypic tests (APT) and conventional phenotypic tests (CPT) proficiency for Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) identification
| Test | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| APT | 97.62 | 100 | 100 | 94.12 |
| CPT | 94.44 | 81.25 | 91.89 | 86.67 |
analysis performed with 54 isolates presumptively identified as Bcc. NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value.