Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2000, p. 1753-1757, Vol. 38, No. 5
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Detection of and Discrimination between
Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria in Intraocular Samples by
Using Nested PCR
Nora M.
Carroll,1,
Emma E. M.
Jaeger,1
Sarah
Choudhury,1
Anthony A. S.
Dunlop,1
Melville M.
Matheson,2
Peter
Adamson,1
Narciss
Okhravi,1,* and
Susan
Lightman1
Department of Clinical
Ophthalmology1 and Department of
Pathology,2 The Institute of Ophthalmology
and Moorfields Eye Hospital, London EC1V 9EL, United Kingdom
Received 31 August 1999/Returned for modification 25 October
1999/Accepted 22 February 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
A nested PCR protocol has been developed for the detection of and
discrimination between 14 species of gram-positive and -negative bacteria in samples of ocular fluids. First-round PCR with
pan-bacterial oligonucleotide primers, based on conserved sequences of
the 16S ribosomal gene, was followed by a
gram-negative-organism-specific PCR, which resulted in a single 985-bp
amplification product, and a multiplex PCR which resulted in two PCR
products: a 1,025 bp amplicon (all bacteria) and a 355 bp amplicon
(gram-positive bacteria only). All products were detected by gel
electrophoresis. The sensitivity of the assay was between 10 fg and 1 pg of bacterial DNA, depending on the species tested, equivalent to
between 24 and 4 live bacteria spiked in water. The identification was
complete in 3.5 h. The molecular techniques were subsequently
applied to four samples of intraocular fluid, (three vitreous and one
aqueous) from three patients with clinical signs of bacterial
endophthalmitis (test samples) and two samples of vitreous from a
patient with chronic intraocular inflammation (control samples). In all
culture-positive samples (two of three vitreous and one of one
aqueous), a complete concordance was observed between molecular methods
and culture results. PCR correctly identified the gram stain
classification of the organisms. The bacterial etiology was also
identified in a culture-negative patient with clinical history and
signs highly suggestive of bacterial endophthalmitis. Furthermore,
control samples from a patient with chronic intraocular inflammation
remained PCR negative. In summary, this protocol has demonstrated
potential as a rapid diagnostic test in confirming the diagnosis of
infection and also determining the Gram status of bacteria with high
specificity and sensitivity.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The advent of DNA amplification by
PCR has had a great impact on the speed and accuracy with which one can
identify a bacterial species or strain. Instead of relying on
time-consuming and subjective phenotypic tests, it is now possible to
rapidly amplify specific regions of bacterial genomes by PCR and
compare them at the sequence level (30, 34). This has the
advantage of being independent of the state of the organism (viable or
nonviable) and has resulted in the reclassification of some organisms
(24). In addition to the reproducibility of PCR, it is
extremely sensitive, requiring only small numbers of organisms for
analysis. This sensitivity has been exploited as the basis for a number
of tests, including the detection of pathogens (4, 15, 16, 21,
24) and the determination of mechanisms of resistance to specific
therapeutic agents (8, 33, 35). The reported sensitivity of
the technique varies, but the detection by PCR of single organisms or
the DNA equivalent to a single organisms has been reported
(3). Nested PCRs are particularly useful in situations where
a high level of sensitivity is required, as is the case with ocular
infections. Use of nested PCRs in a clinical setting has been hampered
by the frequent incidence of false-positive results, but techniques have been developed that eliminate this problem (6, 9, 11).
Endophthalmitis is a term referring to severe intraocular inflammation
centered around the vitreous cavity and/or anterior chamber of the eye
and may be of infectious origin (caused by bacteria or fungi). The
challenges presented by this condition to the clinician are
considerable, as the severity of the clinical signs varies greatly
according to the time to presentation, the inoculum size, and the
species of the infecting organism(s) (18, 28). Also,
low-grade infections can be difficult to distinguish from purely
inflammatory ocular disease. Ideally, all cases of infectious
endophthalmitis would be culture proven, but the number of
culture-proven cases with typical signs of infectious endophthalmitis varies greatly from center to center (2, 18, 28). It is important to establish a diagnosis and identify the infecting organism,
not only because this decides the further management of the patient but
also because it justifies the treatment given. Confirmation of the
diagnosis is made more difficult by the small volumes of the ocular
samples available for analysis (aqueous, 100 to 150 µl; vitreous, 200 to 400 µl). The numbers of organisms required to establish an
infection can also be small and may be as low as 14 (31),
and often only a few colonies are cultured by routine microbiological
methods (usually 40 to 50 CFU). A delay of 24 to 48 h is usual for
routine microbiological processing of the specimens, although it may
take up to 12 days in the case of fastidious organisms (32).
In the absence of a definitive identification of the causal organism,
the clinician must commence therapy on an empirical basis, using
broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents, because a delay in treatment is
often associated with a worse clinical outcome (12).
Clinical cases which are culture negative and respond to antibiotic
therapy are considered infectious despite the lack of definitive
culture identification. Cultures prove to be negative for a variety of
reasons, such as small sample size, sequestration of bacteria on solid
surfaces (e.g. intraocular lens, lens remnants, and capsule) leading to
low numbers in the liquid sample, the use of antibiotics prior to
sampling, and the fastidious nature of some of the organisms which
cause intraocular infection (6, 22, 28). The use of
molecular techniques has, therefore, been investigated in order to
improve the diagnostic rate and reduce the time to diagnosis. This
paper describes an integrated protocol describing the direct detection
in ocular fluids of pathogens with suspected infective pathology. A
nested PCR approach was developed in which primers based on the
conserved bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences were used in the first
round of amplification, while a second round of amplification was able
to differentiate between gram-positive and -negative pathogens.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Patient sampling.
Intraocular (aqueous and vitreous)
sampling was undertaken under sterile conditions. Aqueous sampling was
undertaken under topical anesthesia, using a 27-gauge
(0.33-mm-diameter) needle, and 100 to 200 µl was aspirated. Vitreous
sampling was undertaken as a biopsy through the pars plana. After
subconjunctival injection of anesthetic, a vitreous tap was performed
using a 23-gauge needle which was inserted through the pars plana 3 mm
behind the limbus in aphakic eyes and 4 mm behind the limbus in phakic
eyes. A total of 200 to 400 µl of vitreous was aspirated.
Microbiological assessment.
One drop of vitreous was smeared
on a slide for Gram and periodic acid-Schiff staining, and the
remainder was immediately plated on blood and Sabouraud agar before
transport to the microbiology laboratory. Plates were incubated under
aerobic conditions at 37°C. The cultures were transferred to a 30°C
incubator if no growth was apparent after 48 h. In experiments
where live bacteria were spiked into PCRs, bacteria were streaked out
on blood agar (Biomeriux, Basingstoke, United Kingdom) and isolated
colonies were inoculated into 3 ml of brain heart infusion (Biomeriux). A serial 10-fold dilution of overnight cultures was prepared in maximum
recovery diluent (Oxoid, Basingstoke, United Kingdom), and aliquots
were plated in duplicate for enumeration. Aliquots (5 µl) of
bacterial suspensions were used for PCR.
Bacterial isolates used in this study.
Following isolation
by culture, bacteria were identified using the API biochemical
identification system (API Analytab products, Division of Sherwood
Medical, New York, N.Y.). A total of 40 strains of 14 bacterial species
were tested (see Table 2). All strains were standard NCTC strains
(Public Health Laboratory Service, National Collection of Type Culture,
Colindale, London, United Kingdom). Individual strains were stored on
beads at
70°C (Mast Diagnostics, Bootle, Merseyside, United
Kingdom) and subsequently cultured on standard media according to the
manufacturers' instructions.
Primer design.
The Gram stain-specific primers were designed
by creating consensus sequences of a range of common ocular pathogens
according to their Gram stain classification and comparing them. The
sequences of all primers used in this study are given in Table
1. The gram-positive primer was located
between bases 712 and 729 with respect to the sense strand of the
Escherichia coli rRNA gene sequence and differed from the
gram-negative consensus along its length at 5 of its 18 nucleotides,
with a 3-nucleotide mismatch at the 3' end. Similarly, the
gram-negative-organism-specific primer differed from the
gram-positive-organism-specific consensus at 8 of its 15 nucleotides,
with a 4-nucleotide mismatch at the 3' end but was located on the
antisense strand. The primers were designed such that differently sized
products would be generated, to facilitate an unambiguous assignment of
Gram stain classification. The gram-negative-organism-specific PCR
resulted in a single 985-bp amplification product, and the multiplex
PCR resulted in two PCR products: a pan-bacterial 1025-bp amplicon and
a 355-bp product which was specific to gram-positive bacteria.
Nested PCR.
Bacterial DNA was extracted using glass beads
and alcohol precipitation, as previously described (8).
Taq (AmpliTaq LD; Perkin Elmer, Warrington, Cheshire, United
Kingdom) for the first round of PCR was pretreated according to the
method of Carroll et al. (8). Briefly, prior to PCR
amplification the water, buffer, magnesium chloride, and Taq
components were mixed and incubated for 30 min at 37°C with 1.0 U of
Sau3A1 (Boehringer Mannheim, Lewes, East Sussex, United
Kingdom) per U of Taq polymerase. The restriction enzyme was
subsequently inactivated by incubation at 95°C for 2 min, following
which the deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dNTPs), primers, and template
DNA were added and PCR amplification was commenced. Taq for
the second round of amplification was used without pretreatment. PCRs
were carried out in the proprietary buffers and for the first round of
amplification contained a 60 µM concentration of each deoxynucleoside
triphosphate (Pharmacia, Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, United
Kingdom), 3.0 mM Mg2+, 2.5 pmol of each of the primers 16SF
and 16SR, and 1 U of Taq DNA polymerase in a total volume of
25 µl. The initial denaturation was carried out for 5 min at 94°C,
and cycling was performed as follows: 94°C for 10 s, 54.2°C
for 10 s, and 72°C for 15 s for 30 cycles (Genius Thermal
Cycler; TECHNE, Cambridge, United Kingdom). A second round of
amplification used 1 µl of product from the first round, and a
Mg2+ concentration of 2.5 mM. PCRs specific for
gram-negative organisms utilized 5 pmol each of primers NF and N6R. A
multiplex PCR which simultaneously detected all species of bacteria and
all gram-positive bacteria used 5 pmol each of P2F and NR and 1 pmol of
NF. Denaturation was carried out for 5 min at 94°C and cycling was
performed at 94°C for 7 s, 60°C for 7 s, and 72°C for
10 s for 30 cycles. Multiple reagent controls from the first round
were always subjected to a second round of amplification to control for contamination.
PCR of vitreous and aqueous samples.
Samples of vitreous and
aqueous humors were received either in sterile tubes which had been
sealed in the operating theater or in the syringes used to obtain the
sample, after the requirements of the routine diagnostic
microbiological service had been fulfilled. Aliquots (5 µl) of
vitreous and aqueous humors, either neat or diluted 1/10 with sterile
water were used in each PCR after they had been heated to 95°C for 2 min to extract the DNA. Samples were subjected to PCR in duplicate.
Positive controls containing 10 ng each of E. coli and
Staphylococcus aureus DNA were run for each PCR in neat and
diluted vitreous and aqueous humors to check for inhibition of the PCRs
by the vitreous. Multiple reagent controls were subjected to two rounds
of PCR to control for contamination of reagents.
Electrophoresis and imaging.
Following PCR amplification,
products were resolved on a 1% agarose-Tris-acetate-EDTA gel and
visualized using ethidium bromide under UV illumination, and results
were recorded using the UVP Ltd. (Cambridge, United Kingdom) gel
documentation system.
Sequencing of PCR products.
PCR products were
electrophoresed on 1% agarose gels, and the bands were excised,
extracted using the Qiaquick Gel extraction kit (Qiagen, Crawley, West
Sussex, United Kingdom), and sequenced using the fluorescent dye
terminator sequencing system (ABI). Sequences were submitted for BLAST
searching for similarity to other sequences (1). Consensus
sequences were generated and compared using DNASTAR (Madison, Wis.) software.
 |
RESULTS |
The sensitivity and specificity of the Gram stain-specific primer
pairs was evaluated on a range of common pathogens and is detailed in
Table 2. The sensitivity of the
gram-negative-organism-specific primers was 10 fg of DNA per reaction
in all of the species tested. In contrast, there was a wide variation
in the sensitivity of the gram-positive-organism-specific primer pair,
from 100 fg to 1 pg, reflecting the broad genotypic and phenotypic
diversity of this group. A multiplex PCR was developed using the
primers NF-NR and P2F. The sensitivity of this PCR was identical to
that observed for individual PCRs. Examples of these PCRs carried out with serial dilutions are shown in Fig.
1. None of these primer sets amplified
human lymphocyte DNA or genomic DNA from Candida albicans or
Aspergillus fumigatus under the conditions tested. In the
multiplex PCR the 1,025-bp amplicon is the product of the primer pair
NF-NR, which are both universal bacterial primers, while the 355-bp
amplicon is specific for gram-positive bacteria. The product of the
primer pair NF-N6R that is specific for gram-negative bacteria is 985 bp. Evaluation of the potential of these primers to amplify DNA from
whole bacteria was undertaken by spiking various numbers of bacteria
into water, 5 µl of which was used in the PCRs. The limits of
detection (number of organisms) of the primer pairs for E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, S. aureus, and
Streptococcus pyogenes were 5, 24, 4, and 4, respectively,
and the primers were capable of detecting between 8 × 102 and 4.8 × 103 organisms per ml. The
multiplex and gram-negative-organism-specific PCRs were applied to four
samples of intraocular fluid with suspected infective pathology and two
samples from an eye with intraocular inflammation as a control. A
comparison was made between the results obtained by Gram staining,
culture, and PCR, and a summary is given in Table
3. In all culture-positive samples the
results of PCR and culture were 100% concordant. Also, the results of subsequent DNA sequencing matched the identity of the bacterium as
isolated by culture. Although in this study PCR was applied to these
samples retrospectively, a definitive result could have been reported
3.5 h after receipt of the sample.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 2.
Limit of detection of DNA spiked into water of a nested
PCR using Gram-stain-specific bacterial
primer pairsa
|
|

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Sensitivities of the primer sets were evaluated using
dilutions of DNA in water. (A) Multiplex PCR in which the 1,025-bp
amplicon is the product of the NF-NR primers (universal bacterial
primers) and the 355-bp amplicon is the product of the P2F-NR primers
(specific for gram-positive bacteria). The template DNA was S. aureus NCTC 8532. Lane 1, 10 ng of DNA; lane 2, 1 ng of DNA; lane
3, 100 pg of DNA; lane 4, 10 pg of DNA; lane 5, 1 pg of DNA; lane 6, 100 fg of DNA; lane 7, 10 fg of DNA; lane 8, DNA ladder; lane 9, negative control. (B) Gram-negative-organism-specific PCR in which the
985-bp amplicon is the product of the primers NF-N6R. The template DNA
was E. coli NCTC 10418. Lane 1, 10 ng of DNA; lane 2, 1 ng
of DNA; lane 3, 100 pg of DNA; lane 4, 10 pg of DNA; lane 5, 1 pg of
DNA; lane 6, 100 fg of DNA; lane 7, 10 fg of DNA; lane 8, DNA ladder;
lane 9, negative control.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The detection by PCR of bacterial DNA from body sites which are
normally sterile, has been used to improve the rate of microbiological diagnosis for cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, and vitreous (15, 19, 26). This study has confirmed the usefulness of molecular techniques in establishing the presence of infection and has
further developed them by determining the Gram stain status of the
infecting bacterium. These techniques were also able to confirm the
presence of bacteria in a patient with culture-negative endophthalmitis, who demonstrated a clinical history and signs highly
suggestive of an infective etiology and who responded well to
antibiotic therapy, thereby providing further evidence of the infective
etiology of the condition. Samples from a patient with a case of
chronic intraocular inflammation served as controls and remained PCR
negative. Gram-positive organisms are isolated from intraocular samples
in 58 to 96% of cases, e.g., Staphylococcus spp.
(coagulase-negative staphylococci and S. aureus),
Streptococcus spp., Bacillus cereus, and
Propionibacterium acnes (13, 14, 17, 18, 23).
Gram-negative organisms account for a smaller percentage of culture
positive cases, comprising 4 to 29% in different studies (5, 13,
14, 17, 18, 20, 23). Gram-negative organisms typically isolated
from ocular infections include E. coli, Proteus
mirabilis, Serratia marcescens, Klebsiella
pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and P. aeruginosa. Initial treatment of patients presenting with presumed
bacterial endophthalmitis is aided by the Gram staining of samples and
is guided by the results of this rapid test. Compared to infection with
gram-positive bacteria, infections with gram-negative bacteria are
associated with a greater inflammatory response and poorer visual
prognosis: a reflection of the toxins produced and the greater
virulence of these organisms (20). The Gram stain status of
the infecting bacterium is, therefore, important because it allows
targeted antimicrobial therapy in the later stages of management and
has implications for prognosis and final visual outcome. In the
clinical setting, however, this test is usually negative (no organisms
seen) and, therefore, is only undertaken when sufficient sample is
available for the full array of culture media to be inoculated. PCR
techniques, on the other hand, only require very small amounts of
clinical sample (5 µl) and are not only rapid but sensitive and
efficient in allowing a diagnosis of infection to be made. A
prospective study with larger numbers of clinical samples would be
useful and is now required.
The PCR protocol described in this paper incorporates a number of
safeguards, such that a result can be reported with certainty. The
pretreatment of the Taq DNA polymerase ensures that false positives due to intrinsic contamination of the enzyme are avoided. The
use of both neat and 1/10 dilutions of the intraocular fluid for
analysis, as well as for positive controls, ensures that a negative PCR
result is not due to inhibition by components of the aqueous and
vitreous. Inhibition of PCR by ocular fluids has been reported by
Wiedbrauk et al. (36) and was observed in this study (Fig.
2). The effects of routine dilution on
all samples were not tested but were found to be required in the
analysis of 44% of samples in our subsequent studies
(29; N. Okhravi, P. Adamson, A. Dunlop, H. M. A. Towler, M. M. Matheson, and S. Lightman, unpublished
data). As the inhibition of the reaction was overcome by diluting the
clinical sample in all cases, further studies to elucidate the nature
of these inhibitory factors were not undertaken. Aqueous samples were
found to require dilution more frequently than vitreous samples;
therefore, one can assume the inhibitory factor(s) is present to a
greater degree in the former (29; Okhravi et al.,
unpublished data).

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Results of PCR from a clinical case of culture-positive
bacterial endophthalmitis secondary to gram-positive bacteria. The
vitreous sample was subjected to PCR as described in the text and
electrophoresed on a 1% agarose-TAE gel. Patient sample PCR results
appear in duplicate (lanes 3 to 6). Lane 1, multiplex PCR of
gram-negative DNA in water (positive control); lane 2, multiplex PCR of
gram-positive DNA in neat vitreous (positive control); lanes 3 and 4, multiplex PCR of patient sample (vitreous, diluted 1/10); lanes 5 and
6, multiplex PCR of patient sample (neat vitreous); lane 7, gram-negative-organism-specific PCR of patient sample (vitreous,
diluted 1/10); lane 8, Gram negative PCR of gram-negative DNA in water
(positive control); lane 9, multiplex PCR of gram-negative DNA in
vitreous (positive control); lane 10, multiplex PCR of gram-negative
DNA in water (positive control); lane 11, gram-negative-organism-specific PCR of gram-negative DNA in vitreous;
lane 12, gram-negative-organism-specific PCR of gram-negative DNA in
water; lane 13, DNA ladder; lane 14, negative control (water only, no
vitreous); lane 15, negative control (vitreous and water).
|
|
As the sensitivity of the primers varied with each bacterial species it
was not possible, due to the limited supply of ocular sample, to test
the sensitivity of each reaction with ocular fluids as well as water.
However, other studies in our laboratory have demonstrated that the
sensitivity in water was the same as that in vitreous as long as two
rounds of PCR were used (29). Although the PCR protocol
developed in this study was developed specifically for ocular samples,
it has the potential to be used in other clinical settings where only
small volumes of clinical samples are available and a high degree of
sensitivity is required.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
N.M.C. was supported by Oclyx Ltd. P.A. was supported by Fight
for Sight. N.O. was supported by Wellcome Vision Research Fellowship 045203 and locally organized research funds (no. 221 and 271) from
Moorfields Eye Hospital.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Clinical Ophthalmology, The Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath St., London EC1V 9EL, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-(0)171-6086861. Fax: 44-(0)171-6086931. E-mail: nokhravi{at}hgmp.mrc.ac.uk.
Present address: Department of Medical Biochemistry, University of
Stellenbosch, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Altschul, S. F.,
T. L. Madden,
A. A. Schaffer,
J. Zhang,
Z. Zhang,
W. Miller, and D. J. Lipman.
1997.
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs.
Nucleic Acids Res.
25:3389-3402[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Bazra, M.,
P. R. Pavan,
B. H. Doft,
S. R. Wisniewski,
L. A. Wilson,
D. P. Han, and S. F. Kelsey.
1997.
Evaluation of microbiological diagnostic techniques in postoperative endophthalmitis in the endophthalmitis vitrectomy study.
Arch. Ophthalmol.
115:1142-1150[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Bej, A. K.,
M. H. Mahbubani,
R. Miller,
J. L. DiCesare,
L. Haff, and R. M. Atlas.
1990.
Multiplex PCR amplification and immobilized capture probes for the detection of bacterial pathogens and indicators in water.
Mol. Cell. Probes
4:353-365[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Berriddge, B. R.,
J. D. Fuller,
J. de Azavedo,
D. E. Low,
H. Bercovier, and P. F. Frelier.
1998.
Development of specific nested oligonucleotide PCR primers for the Streptococcus iniae 16S-23S ribosomal DNA intergenic spacer.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:2778-2781[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Bohigian, G. M., and R. J. Olk.
1986.
Factors associated with a poor visual result in endophthalmitis.
Am. J. Ophthalmol.
101:332-341[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Busin, M.,
A. Cusumano, and M. Spitznas.
1995.
Intraocular lens removal from eyes with chronic low-grade endophthalmitis.
J. Cataract Refract. Surg.
21:679-684[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Carroll, K. C.,
R. B. Leonard,
P. L. Newcomb Gayman, and D. R. Hillyard.
1996.
Rapid detection of the staphylococcal mecA gene from BACTEC blood culture bottles by the polymerase chain reaction.
Am. J. Clin. Pathol.
106:600-605[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Carroll, N. M.,
P. Adamson, and N. Okhravi.
1999.
Elimination of bacterial DNA from Taq DNA polymerase using restriction endonuclease digestion.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:3402-3404[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Cimino, G. D.,
K. C. Metchette,
J. W. Tessman,
J. E. Hearst, and S. T. Isaacs.
1991.
Post-PCR sterilisation: a method to control carryover contamination for the polymerase chain reaction.
Nucleic Acids Res.
19:99-107[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Coakley, M.,
R. P. Ross, and D. Donnelly.
1996.
Application of the polymerase chain reaction to the rapid analysis of brewery yeast strains.
J. Inst. Brewing
102:349-354.
|
| 11.
|
DeFilippes, F. M.
1991.
Decontaminating the polymerase chain reaction.
BioTechniques
10:26-30[Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Doft, B. H.,
S. F. Kelsey,
S. Wisniewski,
D. J. Metz,
L. Lobes,
J. Rinkoff,
M. Davis, and A. Kassof.
1994.
Treatment of endophthalmitis after cataract extraction.
Retina
14(4):297-304[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Fisch, A.,
A. Salvanet,
T. Prazuck,
F. Forestier,
L. Gerbaud,
G. Coscas, and the French Collaborative Study Group on Endophthalmitis.
1991.
Epidemiology of infective endophthalmitis in France.
Lancet
338:1373-1376[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Forster, R. K.,
R. L. Abbott, and H. Gelender.
1980.
Management of infectious endophthalmitis.
Ophthalmology
87:313-319[Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Greisen, K.,
M. Loeffelholz,
A. Purohit, and D. Leong.
1994.
PCR primers and probes for the 16S rRNA gene of most species of pathogenic bacteria, including bacteria found in cerebrospinal fluid.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:335-351[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Harnett, N.,
Y. P. Lin, and C. Krishnan.
1996.
Detection of pathogenic Yersinia enterolitica using the multiplex polymerase chain reaction.
Epidemiol. Infect.
117:59-67[Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Heaven, C. J.,
P. J. Mann, and D. L. Boase.
1992.
Endophthalmitis following extracapsular cataract surgery: a review of 32 cases.
Br. J. Ophthalmol.
76:419-423[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Hughes, D. S., and R. J. Hill.
1994.
Infectious endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.
Br. J. Ophthalmol.
78:227-232[Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Hykin, P. G.,
K. Tobal,
G. McIntyre,
M. M. Matheson,
H. M. Towler, and S. L. Lightman.
1994.
The diagnosis of delayed post-operative endophthalmitis by polymerase chain reaction of bacterial DNA in vitreous samples.
J. Med. Microbiol.
40:408-415[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
Irvine, W. D.,
H. W. Flynn,
D. Miller, and S. C. Pflugfelder.
1992.
Endophthalmitis caused by Gram negative organisms.
Arch. Ophthalmol.
110:1450-1454[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Jaton, K.,
R. Sahli, and J. Bille.
1992.
Development of polymerase chain reaction assays for detection of Listeria monocytogenes in clinical cerebrospinal fluid samples.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1931-1936[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Kalicharan, D.,
W. L. Jongebloed,
L. I. Los, and J. G. F. Worst.
1992.
(An)aerobic bacteria found in the secondary-cataract material. A SEM/TEM study.
Doc. Ophthalmol.
82(12):125-133[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 23.
|
Kattan, H. M.,
H. W. Flynn, Jr.,
S. C. Pflugfelder,
C. Robertson, and R. K. Forster.
1991.
Nosocomial endophthalmitis survey. Current incidence of infection after intraocular surgery.
Ophthalmology
98:227-238[Medline].
|
| 24.
|
Kawamura, Y.,
X. Hou,
F. Sultana,
K. Hirose,
M. Miyake,
S. Shu, and T. Ezaki.
1998.
Distribution of Staphylococcus spp. among human clinical specimens and emended description of Staphylococcus caprae.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:2038-2042[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 25.
|
Lee, S. E.,
S. Y. Kim,
S. J. Kim,
H. S. Kim,
J. H. Shin,
S. H. Choi,
S. S. Chung, and J. H. Rhee.
1998.
Direct identification of Vibrio vulnificus in clinical specimens by nested PCR.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:2887-2892[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Mariani, B. D.,
M. J. Levine,
R. E. Booth, Jr., and R. S. Tuan.
1995.
Development of a novel, rapid processing protocol for polymerase chain reaction-based detection of bacterial infections in synovial fluids.
Mol. Biotechnol.
4:227-237[Medline].
|
| 27.
|
McClellan, K. A.,
P. J. Bernard, and F. A. Billson.
1989.
Microbial investigations in keratitis at the Sydney Eye Hospital.
Aust. N. Z. J. Ophthalmol.
17:413-416[Medline].
|
| 28.
|
Okhravi, N.,
H. M. A. Towler,
P. Hykin,
M. M. Matheson, and S. Lightman.
1997.
Assessment of a standard treatment protocol on visual outcome following presumed bacterial endophthalmitis.
Br. J. Ophthalmol.
81:719-725[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 29.
| Okhravi, N., P. Adamson, M. M. Matheson, H. M. A. Towler, and S. Lightman. PCR/RFLP based detection and
speciation of bacteria causing endophthalmitis. Investig. Ophthalmol.
Vis. Sci., in press.
|
| 30.
|
Olive, D. M., and P. Bean.
1999.
Principles and applications of methods for DNA-based typing of microbial organisms.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:1661-1669[Free Full Text].
|
| 31.
|
Records, R. E., and P. C. Iwen.
1989.
Experimental bacterial endophthalmitis following extracapsular lens extraction.
Exp. Eye Res.
49:729-737[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 32.
|
Rogers, N. K.,
P. D. Fox,
B. A. Noble,
K. Kerr, and T. Inglis.
1994.
Aggressive management of an epidemic of chronic pseudophakic endophthalmitis: results and literature survey.
Br. J. Ophthalmol.
78:115-119[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 33.
|
Smith, I. L.,
J. M. Cherrington,
R. E. Jiles,
M. D. Fuller,
W. R. Freeman, and S. A. Spector.
1997.
High levels of resistance of cytomegalovirus to ganciclovir is associated with alterations in both the UL97 and DNA polymerase genes.
J. Infect. Dis.
176:69-77[Medline].
|
| 34.
|
van Belkum, A.
1994.
DNA fingerprinting of medically important microorganisms by use of PCR.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
7:174-184[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 35.
|
Visser, M. R., and A. C. Fluit.
1995.
Amplification methods for the detection of bacterial resistance genes.
J. Microbiol. Methods
23:105-116[CrossRef].
|
| 36.
|
Wiedbrauk, D. L.,
J. C. Werner, and A. M. Drevon.
1995.
Inhibition of PCR by aqueous and vitreous fluid.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:2643-2646[Abstract].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2000, p. 1753-1757, Vol. 38, No. 5
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Wu, Y.-D., Chen, L.-H., Wu, X.-J., Shang, S.-Q., Lou, J.-T., Du, L.-Z., Zhao, Z.-Y.
(2008). Gram Stain-Specific-Probe-Based Real-Time PCR for Diagnosis and Discrimination of Bacterial Neonatal Sepsis. J. Clin. Microbiol.
46: 2613-2619
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Chiquet, C., Cornut, P.-L., Benito, Y., Thuret, G., Maurin, M., Lafontaine, P.-O., Pechinot, A., Palombi, K., Lina, G., Bron, A., Denis, P., Carricajo, A., Creuzot, C., Romanet, J.-P., Vandenesch, F., for the French Institutional Endophthalmitis Study,
(2008). Eubacterial PCR for Bacterial Detection and Identification in 100 Acute Postcataract Surgery Endophthalmitis. IOVS
49: 1971-1978
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Fenicia, L., Anniballi, F., De Medici, D., Delibato, E., Aureli, P.
(2007). SYBR Green Real-Time PCR Method To Detect Clostridium botulinum Type A. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 2891-2896
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Yoshida, A., Nagashima, S., Ansai, T., Tachibana, M., Kato, H., Watari, H., Notomi, T., Takehara, T.
(2005). Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Method for Rapid Detection of the Periodontopathic Bacteria Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, and Treponema denticola. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 2418-2424
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Dreier, J., Stormer, M., Kleesiek, K.
(2004). Two Novel Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assays for Rapid Detection of Bacterial Contamination in Platelet Concentrates. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 4759-4764
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Hill, K.E., Davies, C.E., Wilson, M.J., Stephens, P., Harding, K.G., Thomas, D.W.
(2003). Molecular analysis of the microflora in chronic venous leg ulceration. J Med Microbiol
52: 365-369
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Tseng, C.-P., Cheng, J.-C., Tseng, C.-C., Wang, C., Chen, Y.-L., Chiu, D. T.-Y., Liao, H.-C., Chang, S.-S.
(2003). Broad-Range Ribosomal RNA Real-Time PCR after Removal of DNA from Reagents: Melting Profiles for Clinically Important Bacteria. Clin. Chem.
49: 306-309
[Full Text]
-
Klaschik, S., Lehmann, L. E., Raadts, A., Book, M., Hoeft, A., Stuber, F.
(2002). Real-Time PCR for Detection and Differentiation of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol.
40: 4304-4307
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Peng, X., Luo, W., Zhang, J., Wang, S., Lin, S.
(2002). Rapid Detection of Shigella Species in Environmental Sewage by an Immunocapture PCR with Universal Primers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68: 2580-2583
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ferrer, C., Colom, F., Frases, S., Mulet, E., Abad, J. L., Alio, J. L.
(2001). Detection and Identification of Fungal Pathogens by PCR and by ITS2 and 5.8S Ribosomal DNA Typing in Ocular Infections. J. Clin. Microbiol.
39: 2873-2879
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Okhravi, N., Adamson, P., Carroll, N., Dunlop, A., Matheson, M. M., Towler, H. M. A., Lightman, S.
(2000). PCR-Based Evidence of Bacterial Involvement in Eyes with Suspected Intraocular Infection. IOVS
41: 3474-3479
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Jaeger, E. E. M., Carroll, N. M., Choudhury, S., Dunlop, A. A. S., Towler, H. M. A., Matheson, M. M., Adamson, P., Okhravi, N., Lightman, S.
(2000). Rapid Detection and Identification of Candida, Aspergillus, and Fusarium Species in Ocular Samples Using Nested PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol.
38: 2902-2908
[Abstract]
[Full Text]