Quiblier Chantal, Jetter Marion, Rominski Mark, Mouttet Forouhar, Böttger Erik C, Keller Peter M, Hombach Michael
Universität Zürich, Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Zürich, Switzerland.
Universität Zürich, Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie, Zürich, Switzerland
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Mar;54(3):585-92. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02577-15. Epub 2015 Dec 16.
This study compared a manual workup of urine clinical samples with fully automated WASPLab processing. As a first step, two different inocula (1 and 10 μl) and different streaking patterns were compared using WASP and InoqulA BT instrumentation. Significantly more single colonies were produced with the10-μl inoculum than with the 1-μl inoculum, and automated streaking yielded significantly more single colonies than manual streaking on whole plates (P < 0.001). In a second step, 379 clinical urine samples were evaluated using WASP and the manual workup. Average numbers of detected morphologies, recovered species, and CFUs per milliliter of all 379 urine samples showed excellent agreement between WASPLab and the manual workup. The percentage of urine samples clinically categorized as positive or negative did not differ between the automated and manual workflow, but within the positive samples, automated processing by WASPLab resulted in the detection of more potential pathogens. In summary, the present study demonstrates that (i) the streaking pattern, i.e., primarily the number of zigzags/length of streaking lines, is critical for optimizing the number of single colonies yielded from primary cultures of urine samples; (ii) automated streaking by the WASP instrument is superior to manual streaking regarding the number of single colonies yielded (for 32.2% of the samples); and (iii) automated streaking leads to higher numbers of detected morphologies (for 47.5% of the samples), species (for 17.4% of the samples), and pathogens (for 3.4% of the samples). The results of this study point to an improved quality of microbiological analyses and laboratory reports when using automated sample processing by WASP and WASPLab.
本研究将尿液临床样本的手工检查与全自动WASPLab处理进行了比较。第一步,使用WASP和InoqulA BT仪器比较了两种不同的接种量(1和10 μl)以及不同的划线模式。10 μl接种量产生的单菌落明显多于1 μl接种量,并且在整个平板上,自动划线产生的单菌落明显多于手工划线(P < 0.001)。第二步,使用WASP和手工检查对379份临床尿液样本进行了评估。所有379份尿液样本每毫升检测到的形态、分离出的菌种和菌落形成单位的平均数显示,WASPLab和手工检查之间具有极好的一致性。临床分类为阳性或阴性的尿液样本百分比在自动和手动工作流程之间没有差异,但在阳性样本中,WASPLab的自动处理导致检测到更多潜在病原体。总之,本研究表明:(i)划线模式,即主要是锯齿形的数量/划线长度,对于优化尿液样本原代培养产生的单菌落数量至关重要;(ii)就产生的单菌落数量而言(对于32.2%的样本),WASP仪器的自动划线优于手工划线;(iii)自动划线导致检测到更多的形态(对于47.5%的样本)、菌种(对于17.4%的样本)和病原体(对于3.4%的样本)。本研究结果表明,使用WASP和WASPLab进行自动样本处理时,微生物分析和实验室报告的质量得到了提高。