Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Comparison of two commercial broad-range PCR and sequencing assays for identification of bacteria in culture-negative clinical samples

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Differences in mortality in patients undergoing surgery for infective endocarditis according to age and valvular surgery

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Renal function in Ethiopian HIV-positive adults on antiretroviral treatment with and without tenofovir

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. The cause of death in bacterial meningitis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Accelerated treatment of endocarditis-The POET II trial: Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Exposure of consumers to substandard antibiotics from selected authorised and unauthorised medicine sales outlets in Ghana

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Oral amoxicillin and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid: properties, indications, and usage

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Culturing has long been the gold standard for detecting aetiologic agents in bacterial infections. In some cases, however, culturing fails to detect the infection. To further investigate culture-negative samples, amplification and subsequent sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene is often applied. The aim of the present study was to compare the current method used at our Department of Clinical Microbiology, based on the MicroSeq ID system (Applied Biosystems, USA) with the Universal Microbe Detection (UMD) SelectNA kit (Molzym, Germany).

METHODS: 76 culture-negative samples were first processed with the MicroSeq ID analysis, where total DNA was extracted and the 16S gene amplified and sequenced with the MicroSeq ID system. Samples were subsequently processed with the UMD SelectNA analysis, where human DNA was removed during the DNA extraction procedure and the 16S gene amplified in a real-time PCR and sequenced.

RESULTS: 22 of 76 samples (28.9%) were positive for bacteria with the UMD SelectNA, which was significantly more (p = 0.0055) than the MicroSeq ID where 11 of 76 samples (14.5%) were positive. The UMD SelectNA assay identified more relevant bacterial pathogens than the MicroSeq ID analysis (p = 0.0233), but also found a number of species that were considered contaminations.

CONCLUSIONS: The UMD SelectNA assay was valuable for the identification of pathogens in culture-negative samples; however, due to the sensitive nature of the assay, extreme care is suggested in order to avoid false positives.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBMC Infectious Diseases
Vol/bind17
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)233
ISSN1471-2334
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 27 mar. 2017

ID: 52090827