Suppr超能文献

[弧菌属和气单胞菌属菌株的传统与API 20E微量生化鉴定之间的差异]

[Discordancies between classical and API 20E microtest biochemical identification of Vibrio and Aeromonas strains].

作者信息

Israil Anca-Michaela, Balotescu Mariana-Carmen, Alexandru Ionela, Dobre Georgeta

机构信息

I.N.C.D.M.I. Cantacuzino, Universitatea Bucureşti, Facultatea de Biologie, D.S.P. Ialomiţa.

出版信息

Bacteriol Virusol Parazitol Epidemiol. 2003 Apr-Sep;48(2-3):141-3.

Abstract

The present study reveals some discordancies of diagnosis considering Vibrionaceae strains when tested by comparison with API 20E (BioMerieux) system and classical biochemical reactions, aspects already mentioned in the literature by other authors. If any misidentification has not an important impact (e.g. identification of Aeromonas schubertii as A. sobria), others as misidentification of Aeromonas as Vibrio strains or the failure to recognize Vibrio strains raise major epidemiological problems. The present study was performed on 25 aquatic strains, comparatively identified by means of API 20E system and classical biochemical tests (using media prepared in Vibrio Laboratory of Cantacuzino Institute). All 25 strains were identified as Vibrio fluvialis by API 20E system, while using the classical tests one strain proved to belong to Pseudomonadaceae (O/F test of oxidative type), one was identified as Aeromonas schubertii, 2 Aeromonas hydrophila and 4 Aeromonas caviae. Discordancies between API 20 E system and classical tests were registered for: gelatinase (20%), LDC 12% and ADH, ODH, O/F test, saccharose, manite, inosite (4% each). The misidentification of Aeromonas as Vibrio strains by API 20E hinders the recognition of Aeromonas infections implicated more and more frequently in human pathology in immunodeficient as well as in immunocompetent hosts. Our results demonstrate that the use of API 20E system has some limits in the diagnostic of some bacterial genera (Vibrio, Aeromonas), and the introduction of these systems in the current laboratory practice requires previous information and studies regarding their efficiency and availability for the diagnostic of particular bacterial genera and species.

摘要

本研究揭示了在通过与API 20E(生物梅里埃公司)系统及经典生化反应进行比较来检测弧菌科菌株时,诊断存在一些不一致之处,其他作者在文献中已提及这些方面。如果任何错误鉴定没有重大影响(例如将舒伯特气单胞菌鉴定为温和气单胞菌),那么其他错误鉴定,如将气单胞菌误鉴定为弧菌属菌株或未能识别弧菌属菌株,则会引发重大的流行病学问题。本研究对25株水生菌株进行了检测,通过API 20E系统和经典生化试验(使用坎塔库齐诺研究所弧菌实验室制备的培养基)进行了比较鉴定。API 20E系统将所有25株菌株鉴定为河流弧菌,而使用经典试验时,一株被证明属于假单胞菌科(氧化型的O/F试验),一株被鉴定为舒伯特气单胞菌,2株为嗜水气单胞菌,4株为豚鼠气单胞菌。API 20E系统与经典试验之间在以下方面存在不一致:明胶酶(20%)、赖氨酸脱羧酶(12%)以及精氨酸双水解酶、鸟氨酸脱羧酶、O/F试验、蔗糖、甘露糖、肌醇(各4%)。API 20E将气单胞菌误鉴定为弧菌属菌株,这妨碍了对气单胞菌感染的识别,气单胞菌感染在免疫缺陷宿主以及免疫功能正常宿主的人类病理学中越来越常见。我们的结果表明,在诊断某些细菌属(弧菌属、气单胞菌属)时,使用API 20E系统存在一些局限性,在当前实验室实践中引入这些系统需要有关其对特定细菌属和种诊断的效率和适用性的先前信息及研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验