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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Leary, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lucey, B.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O'Leary, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lucey, B.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2009, p. 3449-3453, Vol. 47, No. 11
0095-1137/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01026-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of the EntericBio Multiplex PCR System with Routine Culture for Detection of Bacterial Enteric Pathogens{triangledown}

James O'Leary, Daniel Corcoran, and Brigid Lucey*

Department of Medical Microbiology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

Received 24 May 2009/ Returned for modification 7 July 2009/ Accepted 22 August 2009

The EntericBio system uses a multiplex PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of Campylobacter spp., Salmonella enterica, Shigella spp., and Escherichia coli O157 from feces. It combines overnight broth enrichment with PCR amplification and detection by hybridization. An evaluation of this system was conducted by comparing the results obtained with the system with those obtained by routine culture, supplemented with alternative PCR detection methods. In a study of 773 samples, routine culture and the EntericBio system yielded 94.6 and 92.4% negative results, respectively. Forty-two samples had positive results by culture, and all of these were positive with the EntericBio system. This system detected an additional 17 positive samples (Campylobacter spp., n = 12; Shigella spp., n = 1; E. coli O157, n = 4), but the results for 5 samples (Campylobacter spp., n = 2; Shigella spp., n = 1; E. coli O157, n = 2) could not be confirmed. The target for Shigella spp. detected by the EntericBio system is the ipaH gene, and the molecular indication of the presence of Shigella spp. was investigated by sequence analysis, which confirmed that the ipaH gene was present in a Klebsiella pneumoniae isolate from the patient. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 100%, 99.3%, 91.5%, and 100%, respectively. Turnaround times were significantly reduced with the EntericBio system, and a result was available between 24 and 32 h after receipt of the sample in the laboratory. In addition, the amount of laboratory waste was significantly reduced by use of this system. In summary, the EntericBio system proved convenient to use, more sensitive than the conventional culture used in this study, and highly specific; and it generated results significantly faster than routine culture for the pathogens tested.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Medical Microbiology, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. Phone: 00353-21-4922505. Fax: 00353-21-4920076. E-mail: brigid.lucey{at}cit.ie

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 2 September 2009.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2009, p. 3449-3453, Vol. 47, No. 11
0095-1137/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01026-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»