Department of Critical Care Medicine, E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 23;7(1):13824. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14244-9.
Chryseobacterium and Elizabethkingia species have recently emerged as causative agents in life-threatening infections in humans. We aimed to evaluate the rates at which four common microbial identification systems identify Chryseobacterium and Elizabethkingia species in clinical microbiology laboratories. Based on the results of 16S rRNA gene sequencing, a total of 114 consecutive bacteremic isolates, including 36 (31.6%) C. indologenes, 35 (30.7%) E. anophelis, 22 (19.3%) C. gleum, 13 (11.4%) E. meningoseptica, and other species, were included in this study. The overall concordance between each method and 16S rRNA gene sequencing when identifying Chryseobacterium and Elizabethkingia species was 42.1% for API/ID32, 41.2% for Phoenix 100 ID/AST, 43.9% for VITEK 2, and 42.1% for VITEK MS. Among the 22 C. gleum isolates, only one (4.8%) was correctly identified using VITEK 2 and Phoenix 100 ID/AST, and none were accurately recognized using API/ID32 or VITEK MS. Except for two isolates that were not identified using API/ID32, all E. anophelis isolates were misidentified by all four identification systems as E. meningoseptica. Our results show that these approaches have low accuracy when identifying Chryseobacterium and Elizabethkingia species. Hence, we recommend amending the discrimination rate of and adding non-claimed pathogens to databases of microbial identification systems.
黄杆菌属和伊丽莎白菌属的种最近已成为危及人类生命的感染的病原体。我们旨在评估四种常见微生物鉴定系统在临床微生物学实验室中鉴定黄杆菌属和伊丽莎白菌属种的比率。根据 16S rRNA 基因测序的结果，共有 114 株连续血培养分离株，包括 36 株（31.6%）黄杆菌属 C. indologenes、35 株（30.7%）伊丽莎白菌属 E. anophelis、22 株（19.3%）黄杆菌属 C. gleum、13 株（11.4%）伊丽莎白菌属 E. meningoseptica 和其他种。当鉴定黄杆菌属和伊丽莎白菌属种时，每种方法与 16S rRNA 基因测序的总一致性为 API/ID32 为 42.1%、Phoenix 100 ID/AST 为 41.2%、VITEK 2 为 43.9%和 VITEK MS 为 42.1%。在 22 株 C. gleum 分离株中，仅有一种（4.8%）使用 VITEK 2 和 Phoenix 100 ID/AST 正确识别，而使用 API/ID32 或 VITEK MS 均无法准确识别。除了两种未使用 API/ID32 识别的分离株外，所有 E. anophelis 分离株均被所有四种鉴定系统错误地鉴定为 E. meningoseptica。我们的结果表明，这些方法在鉴定黄杆菌属和伊丽莎白菌属种时准确性较低。因此，我们建议修改微生物鉴定系统数据库中的鉴别率，并添加未申报的病原体。
