Werner Melanie, Suchodolski Jan S, Lidbury Jonathan A, Steiner Jörg M, Hartmann Katrin, Unterer Stefan
Clinic of Small Animal Internal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Gastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
J Vet Intern Med. 2021 Jan;35(1):199-208. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15982. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
Culture-based assessment of the fecal microbiome using fecal culture profiles frequently is performed in dogs with chronic diarrhea, but the diagnostic value of this approach has not been determined.
To compare the reported results of fecal culture profiles and the polymerase chain reaction-based dysbiosis index (DI) between dogs with chronic diarrhea and healthy dogs; to assess interlaboratory variability in bacterial and fungal cultures among 3 veterinary diagnostic laboratories (diagnostic laboratory 1 [L1], diagnostic laboratory 2 [L2], diagnostic laboratory 3 [L3]); and to compare the reported interpretation of culture profiles (normobiosis versus dysbiosis) with those of the DI.
Eighteen dogs with chronic diarrhea (CDG) and 18 healthy control dogs (HG).
In this prospective, case-control study, fecal samples were submitted to 3 commercial laboratories for fecal culture. The microbiota was assessed using PCR assays. Dogs receiving antimicrobials were excluded.
Dysbiosis index was significantly increased in CDG (mean, 0.9; SD, 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0; 2.8) compared to HG (mean, -3.0; SD, 2.8; CI, -4.3; -1.6; P = .0002), whereas cultures from all laboratories failed to detect significant differences (P = .66, .18, and .66, respectively). Hemolytic Escherichia coli was the only potential enteropathogen on culture, but no significant difference was found between CDG and HG. For diagnosis of dysbiosis, culture showed no agreement with DI (L1, κ = -0.21; CI, -0.44; -0.02; L2, κ = -0.33; CI, -0.58; -0.08; L3, κ = -0.25; CI, -0.39; -0.11). Furthermore, variability among the 3 laboratories was high (L1/L2, κ = 0.15; CI, -0.05; 0.35; L1/L3, κ = -0.08; CI, -0.01; -0.16; L2/L3, κ = -0.06; CI, -0.33; -0.20).
Fecal cultures failed to distinguish between diseased and healthy dogs, and a high level of interlaboratory variation for culture was found.
在患有慢性腹泻的犬类中,经常使用粪便培养谱对粪便微生物群进行基于培养的评估,但这种方法的诊断价值尚未确定。
比较慢性腹泻犬和健康犬粪便培养谱及基于聚合酶链反应的生态失调指数(DI)的报告结果;评估3个兽医诊断实验室(诊断实验室1 [L1]、诊断实验室2 [L2]、诊断实验室3 [L3])之间细菌和真菌培养的实验室间变异性;并比较培养谱(正常菌丛与生态失调)与DI报告的解读结果。
18只慢性腹泻犬(CDG)和18只健康对照犬(HG)。
在这项前瞻性病例对照研究中,将粪便样本提交给3个商业实验室进行粪便培养。使用聚合酶链反应检测评估微生物群。排除接受抗菌药物治疗的犬。
与HG(平均值为-3.0;标准差为2.8;置信区间[CI]为-4.3;-1.6;P = 0.0002)相比,CDG的生态失调指数显著升高(平均值为0.9;标准差为3.8;95%置信区间[CI]为-1.0;2.8),而所有实验室的培养均未检测到显著差异(P分别为0.66、0.18和0.66)。溶血大肠杆菌是培养中唯一潜在的肠道病原体,但CDG和HG之间未发现显著差异。对于生态失调的诊断,培养结果与DI不一致(L1,κ = -0.21;CI为-0.44;-0.02;L2,κ = -0.33;CI为-0.58;-0.08;L3,κ = -0.25;CI为-0.39;-0.11)。此外,3个实验室之间的变异性很高(L1/L2,κ = 0.15;CI为-0.05;0.35;L1/L3,κ = -0.08;CI为-0.01;-0.16;L2/L3,κ = -0.06;CI为-0.33;-0.20)。
粪便培养无法区分患病犬和健康犬,且发现培养的实验室间变异程度很高。