Suppr超能文献

评估一种用于鉴定凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌和微球菌临床分离株的传统常规方法。与API-葡萄球菌和API-葡萄球菌鉴定法的比较。

Evaluation of a conventional routine method for identification of clinical isolates of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Micrococcus species. Comparison with API-Staph and API-Staph-Ident.

作者信息

Gahrn-Hansen B, Heltberg O, Rosdahl V T, Søgaard P

机构信息

Staphylococcal Laboratory, Statens Seruminstitut, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand B. 1987 Oct;95(5):283-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1987.tb03126.x.

Abstract

A collection of 138 consecutive isolates from blood primarily identified as Gram-positive, cluster-forming, coagulase-negative cocci was examined by a conventional routine method for identification of clinical isolates of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Micrococcus species. The method was based on selected reactions from the Kloos & Schleifer scheme, utilizing the conventional media of Statens Seruminstitut. Double determinations for each isolate were performed by the conventional method. The results were compared with speciation by the commercial micromethods API-Staph and API-Staph-Ident. For control, 31 Staphylococcus and 13 Micrococcus reference strains were included. Of the 31 Staphylococcus spp. (reference strains), the conventional system, API-Staph, and API-Staph-Ident correctly identified 87%, 87% and 81%, respectively. Micrococcus spp. were only identified to genus level by the conventional method as well as by API-Staph. API-Staph-Ident is not designed for Micrococcus identification. Of 138 blood isolates, 121 belonged to the genus Staphylococcus while 17 were Micrococcus spp. S. epidermidis dominated with all three methods, constituting approx. 35% of the isolates tested. In only 57% of the isolates identification by all three methods agreed. The three methods were unable to put a name on 7.5% (conventional method), 10.7% (API-Staph) and 2.5% (API-Staph-Ident) of the isolates. Reproducibility was high with the conventional method (100% for the reference strains and 91% for blood culture isolates) as well as with API-Staph and API-Staph-Ident (88%/81% and 81%/81%, respectively). We concluded that our conventional system was able to identify most clinically significant staphylococcal species by means of relatively few tests with a high certainty and a high degree of reproducibility.

摘要

对138株主要从血液中分离出的革兰氏阳性、成簇、凝固酶阴性球菌进行了检测,采用常规方法鉴定凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌和微球菌属的临床分离株。该方法基于Kloos & Schleifer方案中的选定反应,使用丹麦国家血清研究所的常规培养基。对每株分离菌进行两次常规方法测定。将结果与商业微量方法API-Staph和API-Staph-Ident的菌种鉴定结果进行比较。作为对照,纳入了31株葡萄球菌和13株微球菌参考菌株。在31株葡萄球菌属(参考菌株)中,常规系统、API-Staph和API-Staph-Ident的正确鉴定率分别为87%、87%和81%。微球菌属仅通过常规方法以及API-Staph鉴定到属水平。API-Staph-Ident并非设计用于微球菌鉴定。在138株血液分离株中,121株属于葡萄球菌属,17株为微球菌属。表皮葡萄球菌在所有三种方法中占主导地位,约占测试分离株的35%。所有三种方法的鉴定结果仅在57%的分离株中一致。三种方法无法对7.5%(常规方法)、10.7%(API-Staph)和2.5%(API-Staph-Ident)的分离株进行命名。常规方法以及API-Staph和API-Staph-Ident的重现性都很高(参考菌株的重现性为100%,血培养分离株的重现性为91%,API-Staph和API-Staph-Ident的重现性分别为88%/81%和81%/81%)。我们得出结论,我们的常规系统能够通过相对较少的检测以高度确定性和高重现性鉴定出大多数具有临床意义的葡萄球菌种。

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