JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lowe, P.
Right arrow Articles by Norton, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lowe, P.
Right arrow Articles by Norton, R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2002, p. 4625-4627, Vol. 40, No. 12
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.12.4625-4627.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Automated and Nonautomated Systems for Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei

Peter Lowe,1 Catherine Engler,2 and Robert Norton2*

Central Queensland Pathology Laboratory, Mackay,1 Clinical Microbiology, Queensland Health Pathology Services, The Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia2

Received 14 June 2002/ Returned for modification 13 July 2002/ Accepted 21 September 2002

The identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei, the causative agent of melioidosis, is usually not difficult in laboratories in areas where it is endemic. With the increase in international travel and the threat of bioterrorism, it has become more likely that laboratories in areas where it is not endemic could encounter this organism. The increase in the use of and dependence upon automated identification systems makes accurate identification of uncommonly encountered organisms such as B. pseudomallei critically important. This study compares the manual API 20NE and 20E identification systems with the automated Vitek 1 and 2 systems. A total of 103 B. pseudomallei isolates were tested and correctly identified in 98%, 99%, 99%, and 19% of cases, respectively. The failure of the Vitek 2 to correctly identify B. pseudomallei was largely due to differences in the biochemical reactions achieved compared to expected values in the database. It is suggested that this deficiency in the Vitek 2 may be due to the large number of uncertain results reported for these isolates. These results reduce the discriminating ability of the instrument to distinguish between uncommonly encountered isolates such as those of B. pseudomallei.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: The Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia. Phone: 61 7 47961111. Fax: 61 7 47962415. E-mail: Robert_Norton{at}health.qld.gov.au.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, December 2002, p. 4625-4627, Vol. 40, No. 12
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.12.4625-4627.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.