Jing Yang1, Xiang-Ming Qi1, Yong-Gui Wu2. 1. Department of Nephropathy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. 2. Department of Nephropathy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, wuyonggui@medmail.com.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To estimate the clinical value of bacterial detection in peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis (PDAP) by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This study was undertaken to evaluate multiplex RT-PCR for identifying clinically significant bacteria in PDAP. METHODS: Seventy peritoneal dialysate specimens were collected and traditional bacterial culture and universal primer RT-PCR detection of the bacterial were used. RESULTS: The positive rate of traditional culture method was 65.71% (46/70) and that of universal primer RT-PCR was 81.42% (57/70). For 6 clinical commonly pathogenic bacteria, multiplex, and monoplex RT-PCR all detected 38 positive ones within the 57 specimens that were detected positive by universal primer RT-PCR. The results of the 2 methods were completely identical. Detecting bacteria by universal primer PCR and Monoplex RT-PCR needs 4-5 and 6-9 h, respectively, while multiplex RT-PCR needs less than 3 h. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that the multiplex RT-PCR can detect several kinds of bacteria simultaneously and it is also more practical and convenient than monoplex RT-PCR. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To estimate the clinical value of bacterial detection in peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis (PDAP) by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This study was undertaken to evaluate multiplex RT-PCR for identifying clinically significant bacteria in PDAP. METHODS: Seventy peritoneal dialysate specimens were collected and traditional bacterial culture and universal primer RT-PCR detection of the bacterial were used. RESULTS: The positive rate of traditional culture method was 65.71% (46/70) and that of universal primer RT-PCR was 81.42% (57/70). For 6 clinical commonly pathogenic bacteria, multiplex, and monoplex RT-PCR all detected 38 positive ones within the 57 specimens that were detected positive by universal primer RT-PCR. The results of the 2 methods were completely identical. Detecting bacteria by universal primer PCR and Monoplex RT-PCR needs 4-5 and 6-9 h, respectively, while multiplex RT-PCR needs less than 3 h. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that the multiplex RT-PCR can detect several kinds of bacteria simultaneously and it is also more practical and convenient than monoplex RT-PCR. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Meti Buh Gasparic; Torstein Tengs; Jose Luis La Paz; Arne Holst-Jensen; Maria Pla; Teresa Esteve; Jana Zel; Kristina Gruden Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Paul Dark; Claire Wilson; Bronagh Blackwood; Danny F McAuley; Gavin D Perkins; Ronan McMullan; Simon Gates; Geoffrey Warhurst Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 2.692