This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Karachewski, N O Articles by Wells, C L Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Karachewski, N O Articles by Wells, C L

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1985 January; 21(1): 122-126

Comparison of PRAS II, RapID ANA, and API 20A systems for identification of anaerobic bacteria.

ABSTRACT

This study evaluated the PRAS II, RapID ANA, and API 20A systems for the identification of anaerobic bacteria. A total of 80 isolates (68 fresh clinical isolates and 12 stock cultures) were examined and included 25 Bacteriodes spp., 7 Fusobacterium spp., 12 Clostridium spp., 2 Veillonella spp., 16 gram-positive cocci, and 18 gram-positive nonsporeforming bacilli. All isolates were initially identified by the procedures outlined in Holdeman et al. (ed.), Anaerobe Laboratory Manual, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va., 1977; identifications from the PRAS II, RapID ANA, and API 20A systems were compared with these initial identifications. If no supplemental tests were required, the RapID ANA and API 20A systems had incubation times of 4 and 24 h, respectively; the PRAS II system generally required 2 to 5 days of incubation, depending on the growth rate of the isolate. PRAS II identified 74% correct to species level, 14% correct to genus only, and 6% incorrect; 6% could not be identified. PRAS II data were reevaluated according to a revised data base that was provided after completion of the study; PRAS II (revised) identified 82% correct to species, 12% correct to genus only, and 6% incorrect. RapID ANA identified 62% correct to the species level, 28% correct to genus only, and 10% incorrect. API 20A identified 71% correct to the species level, 10% correct to genus only, and 3% incorrect; 16% could not identified. The API 20A is a more established system for identification of anaerobic bacteria; PRAS II and RapID ANA appear to be promising new methods for the identification of anaerobic bacteria.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Rennie, R. P., Brosnikoff, C., Turnbull, L., Reller, L. B., Mirrett, S., Janda, W., Ristow, K., Krilcich, A. (2008). Multicenter Evaluation of the Vitek 2 Anaerobe and Corynebacterium Identification Card. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 2646-2651 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Stavreas, N. P., Amanatidou, C. D., Hatzimanolis, E. G., Legakis, I., Naoum, G., Lakka-Papadodima, E., Georgoulias, G., Morfou, P., Tsiodras, S. (2005). Thyroid Abscess Due to a Mixed Anaerobic Infection with Fusobacterium mortiferum. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 6202-6204 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Song, Y., Liu, C., McTeague, M., Vu, A., Liu, J. Y., Finegold, S. M. (2003). Rapid identification of Gram-positive anaerobic coccal species originally classified in the genus Peptostreptococcus by multiplex PCR assays using genus- and species-specific primers. Microbiology 149: 1719-1727 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Song, Y., Liu, C., McTeague, M., Finegold, S. M. (2003). 16S Ribosomal DNA Sequence-Based Analysis of Clinically Significant Gram-Positive Anaerobic Cocci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41: 1363-1369 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Cordoba, M.G., Jordano, R., Cordoba, J.J. (2000). Microbial hazards analysis in commercial processing of prepared and frozen hake fish fingers Analisis de los riesgos microbiologicos durante el proceso de elaboracion de varitas de merluza. Food Science and Technology International 6: 307-314 [Abstract]  
• Murdoch, D. A. (1998). Gram-Positive Anaerobic Cocci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 11: 81-120 [Abstract] [Full Text]