Starr S E, Thompson F S, Dowell V R, Balows A
Appl Microbiol. 1973 May;25(5):713-7. doi: 10.1128/am.25.5.713-717.1973.
A micromethod multitest system prepared by Analytab Products, Inc. and conventional tests employed at the Center for Disease Control for identification of anaerobes were compared. All procedures were conducted in an anaerobic glove box. A total of 104 cultures, including 18 reference strains and 86 diagnostic cultures, were examined. Ninety-one percent of the total tests performed with the two systems were in agreement. Greater than 90% agreement between the two systems was obtained with 12 of the 17 differential tests compared. The tests for nitrate reduction and H(2)S production gave the poorest agreement, 77.8 and 80.8%, respectively. Only 66% of the 86 diagnostic cultures could be presumptively identified with the micromethod system supplemented only with microscopy and colonial characteristics. However, when appropriate supplementary tests and gas-liquid chromatography were used with the micromethod system, 85% of the 86 strains could be identified. When Ehrlich reagent, instead of Kovac reagent, was used with the micromethod to test for indole, the agreement in identification was raised to 93%.
对Analytab Products公司制备的微量多测试系统与疾病控制中心用于鉴定厌氧菌的传统测试方法进行了比较。所有程序均在厌氧手套箱中进行。共检测了104份培养物,包括18株参考菌株和86份诊断培养物。两个系统进行的总测试中有91%结果一致。在比较的17项鉴别测试中,有12项两个系统的一致性超过90%。硝酸盐还原试验和硫化氢产生试验的一致性最差,分别为77.8%和80.8%。仅通过显微镜检查和菌落特征补充的微量方法系统,86份诊断培养物中只有66%能够被初步鉴定。然而,当微量方法系统使用适当的补充试验和气-液色谱法时,86株菌株中有85%能够被鉴定。当微量方法使用埃利希试剂而非科瓦茨试剂检测吲哚时,鉴定的一致性提高到了93%。