This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Jaulhac, B.
Right arrow Articles by Etienne, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jaulhac, B.
Right arrow Articles by Etienne, J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 1998, p. 2120-2122, Vol. 36, No. 7
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Detection of Legionella pneumophila in Culture-Positive Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluids by PCR

B. Jaulhac,1,* M. Reyrolle,2 Y. K. Sodahlon,1 S. Jarraud,2 M. Kubina,1 H. Monteil,1 Y. Piémont,1 and J. Etienne2

Institut de Bactériologie de la Faculté de Médecine, Université Louis Pasteur et Hopitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg,1 and Centre National de Référence des Legionella, Laboratoire Central de Microbiologie, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon,2 France

Received 30 December 1997/Returned for modification 19 February 1998/Accepted 15 April 1998

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

A prospective study was conducted on 25 Legionella pneumophila culture-positive and 98 culture-negative bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples to compare two DNA preparation methods: a rapid modified Chelex-based protocol and a proteinase K method. PCR was found to be more sensitive with the Chelex-based method (P = 0.03). No difference was found concerning the inhibition rate.

    TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

Among the bacteria responsible for atypical pneumonias, Legionella is one of the main agents involved in severe forms of the disease. Since a good prognosis depends in part on specific early treatment, rapid identification of the causative agent is therefore of great importance. Unfortunately, Legionella is a slow-growing bacterium, and serological diagnosis is generally delayed. For these reasons, molecular methods and especially nucleic acid amplification techniques (20) may represent a useful tool for detection of Legionella in clinical samples. Among the rapid diagnostic methods for evidencing Legionella, DNA amplification by PCR has been reported by several groups to be very effective on various biological samples (4-9, 11-14, 17). To be useful for clinical diagnosis, the format of such a PCR test needs (i) to detect samples containing low numbers of bacteria, (ii) to be easy and rapid, and (iii) to avoid as much as possible false-negative results due to inhibition of the amplification step. The latter aspect is of special importance concerning bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluids, which are very heterogeneous and may contain various substances able to inhibit Taq polymerase such as large amounts of host DNA, heme, acidic polysaccharides and laboratory reagents (3). Numerous protocols have been reported for BAL fluid preparation before DNA amplification (4-6, 10), but, up to now, no comparison of different sample preparation methods has been performed on a significant number of relevant clinical samples.

The aims of our study were (i) to compare on culture-positive BAL fluid samples the sensitivities of two different DNA preparation methods---a rapid modified Chelex-based method and a standard proteinase K method previously reported by some of us for detection of Legionella (4)---and (ii) to determine the rates of Taq polymerase inhibition of these two methods in BAL fluid samples.

The two DNA preparation methods were first tested on artificially seeded BAL fluid samples to compare the sensitivity levels obtained for detection of Legionella by in vitro DNA amplification. First, 10 colonies of a 3-day culture of Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 on BCYE-alpha agar (2) were suspended in 1 ml of sterile distilled water. The number of CFU was determined by plating 100-µl samples of serial dilutions of the culture on BCYE-alpha agar plates; then, a 100-µl culture sample was serially diluted at 4°C in a 1-ml volume of BAL fluid containing no Legionella spp. as proven by culture on BCYE-alpha agar. The artificially seeded BAL fluids obtained were then processed in parallel by the following two protocols.

The first protocol used was a proteinase K lysis method previously described (4). Briefly, a 1-ml aliquot of each BAL fluid specimen was mixed for 15 s with an equal volume of phosphate-buffered saline in a 2-ml microtube and centrifuged for 10 min at 9,500 × g. This wash step was repeated once. The pellet obtained was treated with 50 µg of proteinase K (Sigma, Saint Quentin Fallavier, France), 0.5% (vol/vol) Nonidet P-40 (Boehringer Mannheim, Meylan, France), and 0.5% (vol/vol) Tween 20 (Boehringer Mannheim) in 500 µl of 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8)-50 mM KCl-50 mM MgCl2. DNA was then purified by phenol-chloroform and ethanol precipitation. The air-dried pellet was then resuspended in 40 µl of 10 µM Tris HCl-1 µM EDTA buffer and was heated for 10 min at 95°C. Half of the processed sample (20 µl) was subjected to 40 cycles of amplification in a 100-µl volume. DNA amplification and Southern blot hybridization were performed with primers Lpm-1 and Lpm-2 and detection probe Lpm-3 as previously described (4), except for the Taq polymerase which was purchased from Gibco-BRL (Cergy Pontoise, France). Under these conditions, a sensitivity of 25 CFU/ml was obtained by the proteinase K lysis method (Fig. 1A).


View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1.   Sensitivity of the detection of Legionella in BAL fluids by DNA amplification according to the sample preparation method used. Serial dilutions of the culture of L. pneumophila serogroup 1 ATCC 33152 were seeded in 1-ml BAL fluid samples and subjected to 40 amplification cycles with primers Lpm-1 and Lpm-2 and then to Southern blot analysis after hybridization with the detection probe Lpm-3. (A) Proteinase K protocol; (B) optimized Chelex protocol. CFU per milliliter: lane 1, 2.5 × 103; lane 2, 5 × 102; lane 3, 2.5 × 102; lane 4, 50; lane 5, 25; lane 6, 5; lane 7, 2.5; lane 8, 5 × 10-1; lane 9, 2.5 × 10-1. Lane 10, no bacterium.

In the second DNA preparation method, the BAL pellet obtained after two wash steps in phosphate-buffered saline was resuspended in 500 µl of a 5 to 20% (wt/vol) solution of Chelex 100 resin (Bio-Rad, Richmond, Calif.) in autoclaved distilled water, as described by de Lamballerie et al. (1), in 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0)-0.1 mM EDTA-0.1% sodium azide (11), or in 0.5% (vol/vol) Nonidet P-40-0.5% (vol/vol) Tween 20-50 µg of proteinase K per ml. The samples were then mixed vigorously in a rotary shaker for 30 s and then incubated at 55 or 98°C for 30, 60, or 120 min.

The best results were obtained when DNA was extracted with a 5% solution of Chelex 100 in water or in sodium azide for a 30-min incubation. Increasing the resin concentration to 20% did not produce any improvement in sensitivity, nor did increasing the incubation time to 2 h. Significantly better results were obtained with an incubation temperature of 55°C, and a significant decrease of the sensitivity was also observed if lysis was performed at boiling temperature instead of 55°C. This might be explained by fragmentation of Legionella DNA at temperatures higher than 55°C. Under these optimized conditions, the detection threshold of Legionella in BAL fluids was reproducibly estimated to be 5 CFU/ml (Fig. 1B).

Then, a total of 25 BAL fluid samples, consecutively collected at two separate university hospitals (Lyon and Strasbourg, France) and previously found to be positive by culture for L. pneumophila, were each processed by the two optimized DNA preparation methods described below. L. pneumophila serogroups 1, 3 to 5, 8, and 10 were isolated from these BAL fluid samples with concentrations ranging from 101 to >105 CFU/ml (Table 1). Among the 25 samples tested, 17 (68%) were found to be positive by DNA amplification after DNA preparation by the proteinase K lysis method whereas 22 specimens (88%) were positive by the optimized Chelex protocol. Compared to the results obtained by the proteinase K method, the optimized Chelex protocol showed better results (P = 0.03) by Fischer's test using StatXact-3 software (Cytel Software Corporation, Cambridge, Mass.). This confirms PCR as an efficient tool with high sensitivity, among the direct-diagnosis tests for this disease. In this way, direct immunofluorescence and nucleic acid probe assays are usually reported to have a sensitivity of 50 to 70% among culture-proven samples (15). Urinary antigen assay has a sensitivity of 80%, but for L. pneumophila serogroup 1 infection only (16).

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1.   PCR positivity in relation to the Legionella load of the BAL fluid sample and the sample preparation method used

All DNA samples positive by the proteinase K method were positive when prepared by the Chelex method. Sensitivity of PCR by the latter preparation method should be particularly emphasized since, of the six culture-positive samples containing as few as 10 Legionella bacteria/ml, three were positive by the Chelex protocol whereas only one was positive by the proteinase K protocol. In the same way, all nine BAL fluid samples containing 2 × 101 to 102 CFU/ml were positive by Chelex whereas only seven of the nine BAL fluid samples were positive after proteinase K preparation (Table 1).

Then, we investigated the rate of Taq polymerase inhibition in BAL fluid samples by testing a total of 98 BAL fluid samples previously found to be negative for Legionella by culture on BCYE-alpha agar and by PCR. A quantity of a BAL fluid DNA preparation equal to that previously tested for the presence of Legionella DNA was amplified in a second PCR run after 1 pg of L. pneumophila serogroup 1 total DNA was added to the amplification mix. Samples giving no signal after PCR as well as samples giving a significantly lower signal than expected were considered inhibited. In this way, the overall Taq polymerase inhibition rate was 15% for all the preparation methods used (Table 2). This inhibition rate for the proteinase K lysis method is in accordance with the data reported by Maass (10), who showed that 12% of 75 samples were inhibited when the same DNA preparation procedure was used. This enhances the requirement for systematic testing of PCR-negative samples for inhibitors when BAL fluid samples are subjected to PCR.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2.   Rate of Taq polymerase inhibition in BAL fluid specimens in relation to sample type

Among the 98 BAL fluid samples tested, some had a higher probability of PCR inhibition: 27 contained macroscopically visible blood, 24 contained numerous host cells (DNA preparation giving a visible smear on agarose gel), and 17 contained both blood and a high number of host cells. Although the difference was not statistically significant, it is noteworthy that the lowest rate of inhibitors (10%) was observed for BAL fluid samples with normal cellularity (no visible smear on agarose gel) and without macroscopically visible blood whereas the highest rate (29%) was observed for samples containing macroscopically visible blood and numerous host cells. The presence of blood alone did not seem to have an influence on the rate of inhibitors with the Chelex method compared to the results observed with the proteinase K method. This result is in accordance with previous data concerning bloody samples (18, 19). In another way, the proteinase K method seems to be less sensitive than the Chelex method to the inhibitory effect of the presence of numerous cells in the sample. However, the Chelex protocol is quicker and easier to perform. These characteristics make this method less prone to contamination from sample to sample and more suitable for a diagnostic application.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge D. Herb and C. Barthel for excellent technical assistance.

    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Institut de Bactériologie, 3 rue Koeberlé, 67000 Strasbourg, France. Phone: 33-388-21-19-76. Fax: 33-388-25-11-13. E-mail: jaul-ibs{at}tpgnet.net.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Text
References

1. de Lamballerie, X., C. Zandotti, C. Vignoli, C. Bollet, and P. de Micco. 1992. A one-step microbial DNA extraction method using "Chelex 100" suitable for gene amplification. Res. Microbiol. 143:785-790[Medline].
2. Edelstein, P. H. 1993. Legionnaires' disease. Clin. Infect. Dis. 16:741-749[Medline].
3. Greenfield, L., and T. J. White. 1993. Sample preparation methods, p. 122-137. In D. H. Persing, T. F. Smith, F. C. Tenover, and T. J. White (ed.), Diagnostic molecular microbiology: principles and applications. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
4. Jaulhac, B., M. Nowicki, N. Bornstein N., O. Meunier, G. Prévost, Y. Piémont, J. Fleurette, and H. Monteil. 1992. Detection of Legionella spp. in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids by DNA amplification. J. Clin. Microbiol. 30:920-924[Abstract/Free Full Text].
5. Jonas, D., A. Rosenbaum, S. Weyrich, and S. Bhakdi. 1995. Enzyme-linked immunoassay for detection of PCR-amplified DNA of legionellae in bronchoalveolar fluid. J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:1247-1252[Abstract].
6. Kessler, H. H., F. F. Reinthaler, A. Pschaid, K. Pierer, B. Kleinhappl, E. Eber, and E. Marth. 1993. Rapid detection of Legionella species in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids with the EnviroAmp legionella PCR amplification and detection kit. J. Clin. Microbiol. 31:3325-3328[Abstract/Free Full Text].
7. Koido, M., and A. Saito. 1995. Diagnosis of Legionella pneumophila infection by polymerase chain reaction. Clin. Infect. Dis. 21:199-201[Medline].
8. Lindsay, D. S. J., W. H. Abraham, and R. J. Fallon. 1994. Detection of mip gene by PCR for diagnosis of Legionnaires' disease. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32:3068-3069[Abstract/Free Full Text].
9. Lisby, G., and R. Dessau. 1994. Construction of a DNA amplification assay for detection of Legionella species in clinical samples. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13:225-231[Medline].
10. Maass, M., and K. Dalhoff. 1994. Comparison of sample preparation methods for detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid by PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32:2616-2619[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11. Maiwald, M., M. Schill, C. Stockinger, J. H. Helbig, P. C. Lück, W. Witzleb, and H. G. Sonntag. 1995. Detection of Legionella DNA in human and guinea pig urine samples by the polymerase chain reaction. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 14:25-33[Medline].
12. Matsiota-Bernard, P., E. Pitsouni, N. Legakis, and C. Nauciel. 1994. Evaluation of commercial amplification kit for detection of Legionella pneumophila in clinical specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32:1503-1505[Abstract/Free Full Text].
13. Miller, L. A., J. L. Beebe, J. C. Butler, W. Martin, R. Benson, R. E. Hoffman, and B. S. Fields. 1993. Use of polymerase chain reaction in an epidemiologic investigation of Pontiac fever. J. Infect. Dis. 168:769-772[Medline].
14. Nowicki, M., N. Bornstein, B. Jaulhac, Y. Piemont, H. Monteil, and J. Fleurette. 1993. Rapid detection of legionellae in clinical and environmental samples by polymerase chain reaction, p. 178-181. In J. M. Barbaree, R. F. Breiman, and A. P. Dufour (ed.), Legionella: current status and emerging perspectives. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
15. Pasculle, A. W., G. E. Veto, S. Krystofiak, K. McKelvey, and K. Vrsalovic. 1989. Laboratory and clinical evaluation of a commercial DNA probe for detection of Legionella spp. J. Clin. Microbiol. 27:2350-2358[Abstract/Free Full Text].
16. Plouffe, J. F., T. M. File, Jr., R. F. Breiman, B. A. Hackman, S. J. Salstrom, B. J. Marston, B. S. Fields, and the Community-Based Pneumonia Incidence Study Group. 1995. Reevaluation of the definition of Legionnaires' disease: use of the urinary antigen assay. Clin. Infect. Dis. 20:1286-1291[Medline].
17. Ramirez, J. A., S. Akkee, A. Tolentino, R. D. Miller, and J. T. Summersgill. 1996. Diagnosis of Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, or Chlamydia pneumoniae lower respiratory infection using the polymerase chain reaction on a single throat swab specimen. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 24:7-14[Medline].
18. Walsh, P. S., D. A. Metzger, and R. Higuchi. 1991. Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. BioTechniques 10:506-513[Medline].
19. Winberg, C. 1991. A rapid method for preparing DNA from blood, suited for PCR screening of transgenes in mice. PCR Methods Appl. 1:772-774.
20. Wolcott, M. J. 1992. Advances in nucleic acid-based detection methods. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 5:370-386[Abstract/Free Full Text].


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 1998, p. 2120-2122, Vol. 36, No. 7
0095-1137/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Aoki, S., Hirakata, Y., Miyazaki, Y., Izumikawa, K., Yanagihara, K., Tomono, K., Yamada, Y., Tashiro, T., Kohno, S., Kamihira, S. (2003). Detection of Legionella DNA by PCR of whole-blood samples in a mouse model. J Med Microbiol 52: 325-329 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kessler, H. H., Mühlbauer, G., Rinner, B., Stelzl, E., Berger, A., Dörr, H.-W., Santner, B., Marth, E., Rabenau, H. (2000). Detection of Herpes Simplex Virus DNA by Real-Time PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38: 2638-2642 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Loeffelholz, M. J., Thompson, C. J., Long, K. S., Gilchrist, M. J. R. (1999). Comparison of PCR, Culture, and Direct Fluorescent-Antibody Testing for Detection of Bordetella pertussis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37: 2872-2876 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Jaulhac, B.
Right arrow Articles by Etienne, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jaulhac, B.
Right arrow Articles by Etienne, J.