This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Other Versions of this Article: JCM.02253-06v1 45/6/1898    most recent 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wu, X. Articles by Liu, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wu, X. Articles by Liu, Z.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2007, p. 1898-1903, Vol. 45, No. 6
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.02253-06
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Three Methods for Rapid Identification of Mycobacterial Clinical Isolates to the Species Level

Tuberculosis Research Laboratory, Tuberculosis Center, The 309th Hospital of PLA, 100091 Beijing,¹ Thorax Disease Hospital of Hebei Province, 050041 Shijiazhuang,² Pulmonary Disease Hospital of Shanghai, 200433 Shanghai,³ Pulmonary Disease Hospital of Fujian Province, 350008 Fuzhou,⁴ Thorax Disease Hospital of Guangzhou, 510095 Guangzhou, China⁵

Received 3 November 2006/ Returned for modification 10 January 2007/ Accepted 6 March 2007

A new PCR-reverse dot blot hybridization (RDBH) assay was developed for the rapid identification of Mycobacterium species in clinical isolates. The assay, which targets the 16S rRNA, was evaluated for 27 mycobacterial reference strains and 340 clinical isolates that were simultaneously identified by DNA sequencing and conventional methods, including growth characteristics, pigment production, colony morphology, and biochemical tests. All reference strains and clinical isolates hybridized to the Mycobacterium genus probe (probe M) on the membrane (100% sensitivity). Each probe had only one hybridization signal with the corresponding Mycobacterium species or complex (100% specificity). Compared with DNA sequencing, the RDBH assay correctly identified 337 (99.1% accuracy) of the 340 isolates tested. One M. asia isolate and one M. neoaurum isolate were not identified by the RDBH assay due to the absence of specific probes for the two species on the membrane. Three isolates with different nucleotide sequences from M. intracellulare reference strains had a negative hybridization signal with probe c, which is specific for M. intracellulare. The whole procedure can be completed within 2.5 h post-PCR processing. A total of 32 of 340 isolates were erroneously identified by conventional methods (90.6% accuracy). Molecular identification based on the 16S rRNA sequence was superior to the conventional approaches in speed, sensitivity, and specificity. Therefore, the RDBH assay can be considered a rapid, simple, and reliable method for routine identification of frequently occurring and clinically relevant mycobacteria.

Published ahead of print on 14 March 2007.