Evaluation of three molecular typing techniques for nonfermentative Gram-negative bacilli.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Silbert S;Silbert S; Pfaller MA; Hollis RJ; Barth AL; Sader HS
  • Source:
    Infection control and hospital epidemiology [Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol] 2004 Oct; Vol. 25 (10), pp. 847-51.
  • Publication Type:
    Comparative Study; Evaluation Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Cambridge University Press Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8804099 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0899-823X (Print) Linking ISSN: 0899823X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: Jan. 2015- : Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
      Original Publication: [Thorofare, N.J. ] : SLACK Inc., c1988-
    • Subject Terms:
      Bacterial Typing Techniques/*methods ; DNA, Bacterial/*analysis ; Gram-Negative Bacteria/*isolation & purification; Acinetobacter baumannii/isolation & purification ; Bacterial Typing Techniques/economics ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field ; Latin America ; Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa/isolation & purification ; Reproducibility of Results ; Ribotyping ; Time Factors
    • Abstract:
      Objective: To evaluate three different DNA techniques for typing nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli isolated from Latin American hospitals.
      Design: One hundred twenty-six nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli were typed.
      Participants: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 64) and Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 42) samples were obtained from blood cultures of patients admitted to 10 medical centers in Latin America during 1998 and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 20) samples were obtained from patients admitted to the Hospital São Paulo between 1999 and 2001.
      Methods: All samples were typed using automated ribotyping, PFGE, and ERIC-PCR. The discriminatory power for each technique was calculated using Hunter's generalized formula.
      Results: All strains could be typed by automated ribotyping and ERIC-PCR, but two strains (1.6%) were not typeable by PFGE. All three techniques showed 100% reproducibility. The time to obtain the results was shorter for automated ribotyping and ERIC-PCR compared with PFGE. Likewise, the costs for ERIC-PCR and PFGE were lower than those for automated ribotyping. The interpretation of results was more complicated and more difficult with ERIC-PCR than with both PFGE and automated ribotyping. All techniques presented excellent discriminatory power for P. aeruginosa (0.98). PFGE presented the highest discriminatory power (0.94) for A. baumannii, and both PFGE and ERIC-PCR showed higher discriminatory power (0.90 for both) than automated ribotyping (0.82) for S. maltophilia.
      Conclusions: PFGE showed the highest discriminatory power for typing these nonfermentative gram-negative bacilli. However, automated ribotyping and ERIC-PCR can provide results in a shorter time period with similar discriminatory power.
    • Accession Number:
      0 (DNA, Bacterial)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20041103 Date Completed: 20050207 Latest Revision: 20191210
    • Publication Date:
      20240829
    • Accession Number:
      10.1086/502307
    • Accession Number:
      15518027