Collins M T, Swanson E C
Am J Vet Res. 1981 Jul;42(7):1269-73.
The capability of the API 20E system to identify gram-negative nonfermenters and nonenteric fermenters was evaluated for 272 isolates from veterinary sources. Two different methods were used for interpreting the carbohydrate fermentation reactions on the strip. In method I, weakly fermented (yellow-green) carbohydrates were considered positive for all oxidase-positive organisms, and in method II, yellow-green carbohydrates were considered positive for all organisms requiring incubation for 48 hours. By both methods, the API system correctly identified 62% of the isolates. With method I, 31% of the isolates were misidentified and 6% were not identified. With method II, 21% of the isolates were misidentified and 17% received no identification. Organisms most affected by these 2 methods of interpretation were Pasteurella and Actinobacillus. Identifications reached by the API system were also compared with identifications made by veterinary diagnostic laboratories. The frequency of identifications agreements was not significantly affected by the method of API carbohydrate fermentation reaction interpretation. Generally, 30% of the identifications agreed (diagnostic laboratories vs API) when using only the API Index, whereas 51% agreed when the entire API computer data base identifications were included. The type of identification disagreements between diagnostic laboratories and the API system, however, was significantly affected by the method of API strip interpretation. With method I, 42% of the identifications were different and 6% were not in the API data base. With method II, 33% of the identifications were different and 17% were not in the API data base. Biotype differences between human and veterinary isolates were also compared. Significant differences between the predicted and actual reactions were noted for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bordetella bronchiseptica; however, these differences did not affect their correct identification to the API Index. For Pasteurella multocida, most profile numbers were not listed in the API Index because of differences in the actual vs predicted oxidase and nitrate reduction reactions; however, they were correctly identified with the total computer data base.
针对来自兽医领域的272株分离菌,评估了API 20E系统鉴定革兰氏阴性非发酵菌和非肠道发酵菌的能力。采用两种不同方法解读试条上的碳水化合物发酵反应。方法I中,对于所有氧化酶阳性菌,弱发酵(黄绿)碳水化合物被视为阳性;方法II中,对于所有需培养48小时的菌,黄绿碳水化合物被视为阳性。两种方法下,API系统均正确鉴定了62%的分离菌。方法I中,31%的分离菌被误鉴定,6%未被鉴定。方法II中,21%的分离菌被误鉴定,17%未得到鉴定。受这两种解读方法影响最大的菌是巴斯德菌属和放线杆菌属。还将API系统的鉴定结果与兽医诊断实验室的鉴定结果进行了比较。API碳水化合物发酵反应解读方法对鉴定一致性频率没有显著影响。一般来说,仅使用API索引时,30%的鉴定结果一致(诊断实验室与API),而纳入整个API计算机数据库鉴定结果时,51%的鉴定结果一致。然而,诊断实验室与API系统之间鉴定结果不一致的类型,受API试条解读方法的显著影响。方法I中,42%的鉴定结果不同,6%不在API数据库中。方法II中,33%的鉴定结果不同,17%不在API数据库中。还比较了人和兽医分离菌之间的生物型差异。铜绿假单胞菌和支气管败血波氏杆菌的预测反应与实际反应之间存在显著差异;然而,这些差异并不影响它们在API索引中的正确鉴定。对于多杀巴斯德菌,由于实际与预测的氧化酶和硝酸盐还原反应存在差异,大多数特征编号未列在API索引中;然而,使用整个计算机数据库时它们被正确鉴定。