Suppr超能文献

快速且经济的临床重要凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌菌种鉴定方法。

Rapid and economical method for species identification of clinically significant coagulase-negative staphylococci.

作者信息

Ieven M, Verhoeven J, Pattyn S R, Goossens H

机构信息

Laboratory Microbiology, University Hospital Antwerpen, Edegem, Belgium.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1995 May;33(5):1060-3. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.5.1060-1063.1995.

Abstract

Four methods for the species identification of coagulase-negative staphylococci in the medical microbiology laboratory were compared with 444 consecutive isolates. The methods included (i) the reference method based on growth tests, (ii) API ID 32 Staph (bioMérieux), (iii) Staph-Zym (Rosco), and (iv) a rapid 4-h method developed in our laboratory (UZA method). The last method is based on the detection within 4 h of enzymatic activity of heavy bacterial suspensions in three substrate solutions (nongrowth tests). For 16.5% of the isolates some supplementary growth tests read after 24 h had to be added to the enzyme data for satisfactory identification. The reference method failed to identify four isolates. Of the 440 isolates identified by the reference method, API ID 32 Staph, Staph-Zym, and the UZA method correctly identified 419 (95.2%), 429 (97.5%), and 430 (97.7%) and misidentified 8 (1.8%), 4 (0.9%), and 1 (0.2%), respectively. Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. haemolyticus, S. lugdunensis, S. schleiferi, and S. capitis were identified with an accuracy of 98 to 100% by all the systems tested. S. capitis subsp. ureolyticus was not recognized by the API ID 32 system because the biochemical profiles for it are not yet included in the corresponding database. Whereas API ID 32 identified all 13 S. warneri isolates, both Staph-Zym and the UZA method missed 2 of these. S. hominis was identified with the least accuracy by the API ID 32 system (26 of 39 isolates), whereas the UZA and Staph-Zym methods identified 36 of the isolates belonging to this species. The UZA method did not identify any of the S. cohnii, S. xylosus, S. lentus, and S. sciuri strains, since it included no discriminatory tests for these species, because they are extremely rarely found in humans. Of all 440 isolates tested, the UZA method failed to identify 9 and misidentified 1 other. Eighty-one percent of the isolates were identified within 4 h and 97.7% were identified after 24 h, at considerably less expense than by the API ID 32 Staph and Staph-Zym methods.

摘要

在医学微生物实验室中,将四种凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌的菌种鉴定方法与444株连续分离株进行了比较。这些方法包括:(i)基于生长试验的参考方法;(ii)API ID 32 Staph(生物梅里埃公司);(iii)Staph-Zym(罗斯科公司);(iv)我们实验室开发的一种快速4小时方法(UZA方法)。最后一种方法基于在三种底物溶液中重悬细菌的酶活性在4小时内的检测(非生长试验)。对于16.5%的分离株,为了获得满意的鉴定结果,必须在24小时后读取一些补充生长试验数据并将其添加到酶数据中。参考方法未能鉴定出4株分离株。在参考方法鉴定出的440株分离株中,API ID 32 Staph、Staph-Zym和UZA方法分别正确鉴定出419株(95.2%)、429株(97.5%)和430株(97.7%),错误鉴定出8株(1.8%)、4株(0.9%)和1株(0.2%)。所有测试系统对表皮葡萄球菌、溶血葡萄球菌、路邓葡萄球菌、施氏葡萄球菌和头状葡萄球菌的鉴定准确率为98%至100%。API ID 32系统未识别出头状葡萄球菌解脲亚种,因为其生化谱尚未包含在相应数据库中。虽然API ID 32鉴定出了所有13株沃氏葡萄球菌分离株,但Staph-Zym和UZA方法都遗漏了其中2株。API ID 32系统对人葡萄球菌的鉴定准确率最低(39株分离株中的26株),而UZA和Staph-Zym方法鉴定出了属于该菌种的36株分离株。UZA方法未鉴定出任何科氏葡萄球菌、木糖葡萄球菌、缓慢葡萄球菌和松鼠葡萄球菌菌株,因为它没有针对这些菌种的鉴别试验,因为它们在人类中极为罕见。在所有测试的440株分离株中,UZA方法未能鉴定出9株,错误鉴定出1株。81%的分离株在4小时内得到鉴定,97.7%的分离株在24小时后得到鉴定,成本远低于API ID 32 Staph和Staph-Zym方法。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Current and emerging trends in techniques for plant pathogen detection.植物病原体检测技术的当前及新出现的趋势
Front Plant Sci. 2023 May 8;14:1120968. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1120968. eCollection 2023.
3
Clinical characteristics of Staphylococcus epidermidis: a systematic review.表皮葡萄球菌的临床特征:一项系统综述
GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2014 Sep 30;9(3):Doc23. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000243. eCollection 2014.
4
Coagulase-negative staphylococci.凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014 Oct;27(4):870-926. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00109-13.

本文引用的文献

5
Native valve endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus capitis.头状葡萄球菌引起的自体瓣膜心内膜炎。
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1993 Oct;12(10):789-91. doi: 10.1007/BF02098474.

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