Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2001, p. 3955-3961, Vol. 39, No. 11
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.11.3955-3961.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Phenotypic Identification of Actinomyces
and Related Species Isolated from Human Sources
Nanna
Sarkonen,1,*
Eija
Könönen,1
Paula
Summanen,2
Mauno
Könönen,3,4,5 and
Hannele
Jousimies-Somer1
Anaerobe Reference Laboratory, National
Public Health Institute,1 University of
Helsinki,4 and Helsinki University
Central Hospital,5 Helsinki, Finland;
Veterans Affairs Wadsworth Medical Center, Los Angeles,
California2; and University of Aarhus,
Aarhus, Denmark3
Received 8 May 2001/Returned for modification 23 July 2001/Accepted 21 August 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
Recent advancements in chemotaxonomic and molecular biology-based
identification methods have clarified the taxonomy of the genus
Actinomyces and have led to the recognition of several new Actinomyces and related species.
Actinomyces-like gram-positive rods have increasingly been
isolated from various clinical specimens. Thus, an easily accessible
scheme for reliable differentiation at the species level is needed in
clinical and oral microbiology laboratories, where bacterial
identification is mainly based on conventional biochemical methods. In
the present study we designed a two-step protocol that consists of a
flowchart that describes rapid, cost-efficient tests for preliminary
identification of Actinomyces and closely related species
and an updated more comprehensive scheme that also uses fermentation
reactions for accurate differentiation of Actinomyces and
closely related species.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The genus
Actinomyces consists of a heterogeneous group of
gram-positive, mainly facultatively anaerobic or microaerophilic rods
with various degrees of branching (22).
Actinomyces species are frequently found as members of the
normal microflora, especially in the mouth; but they are also found to
be etiologic agents in infections, such as in classical actinomycosis,
human bite wounds and abscesses at different body sites, eye
infections, and oral, genital, and urinary tract infections (20,
23). Detection of Actinomyces species in clinical
specimens is important, as it may affect the prognosis and patient
management, but identification by conventional biochemical methods can
be difficult.
At present, 15 different Actinomyces species are found in
humans, with 9 found in the oral cavity. Actinomyces
israelii is known as the key species responsible for classical
actinomycosis (23), but it is often isolated in connection
with other oral infections, such as peri-implantitis (N. Sarkonen, E. Könönen, E. Tarkka, P. Laine, M. Könönen, and
H. Jousimies-Somer, J. Dent. Res. 79(special
Issue):620, abstr. 3813, 2000). Actinomyces
odontolyticus, Actinomyces naeslundii, and
Actinomyces viscosus are the primary Actinomyces
species in infants' mouths (21) as well as in early
dental plaque (13, 17). Actinomyces georgiae,
Actinomyces gerensceriae, and Actinomyces meyeri
have been isolated from gingival crevices of periodontally healthy individuals (3, 10). Two new Actinomyces
species of oral origin have been described recently: Actinomyces
radicidentis from infected root canals (4) and
Actinomyces graevenitzii from respiratory tract secretions
(19) and infants' saliva (21). During the
past few years, several other new species from nonoral sources have
been included in the genus Actinomyces (6, 7, 12, 16,
27) and some former Actinomyces species have been moved to the closely related genera Arcanobacterium and
Actinobaculum (11, 18). The natural habitats of
these species have remained obscure, and their clinical relevance as a
part of a polymicrobial infection is not fully established (8,
20). The recent changes in nomenclature among the
Actinomyces species and closely related genera are presented
in Table 1.
The identification and differentiation of the gram-positive rods that
belong to the genus Actinomyces may pose major problems for
clinical and oral microbiology laboratories in terms of labor, time,
and cost when conventional biochemical methods are used. Furthermore,
currently available commercial identification kits do not include most
of newer species in their databases. Sophisticated novel methods such
as pyrolysis mass spectrometry, amplified 16S ribosomal DNA restriction
analysis (8, 14), and 16S rRNA sequencing will greatly
help in the identification of the most problematic
Actinomyces species. Unfortunately, these methods are still
available only in research and reference laboratories. The aim of the
present study was to create an easily accessible flowchart that
describes rapid, cost-efficient tests for the preliminary identification of Actinomyces and closely related species
and an updated biochemical scheme for the more definite differentiation of Actinomyces species and closely related species in
routine clinical and oral microbiology laboratories.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Bacterial strains.
The strains used in this study consisted
of 19 reference strains from international culture collections (see
Table 2), including 15 Actinomyces spp., 3 Arcanobacterium spp., and 1 Actinobaculum sp.,
and 70 clinical Actinomyces isolates from oral and nonoral sources. The clinical isolates, which originated from infants' saliva
(n = 29), peri-implantitis samples (n = 20), submandibular abscesses (n = 6), and nonoral
sites (n = 15, of which 13 were a kind gift from V. Hall, University Hospital of Wales) in adults, were presumptively
assigned as members of the genus Actinomyces on the basis of
the fact that they were gram-positive branching rods and produced
succinic acid as the major end product of glucose metabolism, as
determined by gas-liquid chromatography. All strains were revived from
frozen (
70°C) stocks, subcultured twice, on brucella blood agar,
and incubated anaerobically at 37°C for 3 to 4 days before testing.
Morphological and biochemical characteristics.
The
identification of the isolates was performed by established biochemical
methods. Briefly, colony morphology was examined under a dissecting
microscope, pigmentation was assessed on brucella and rabbit laked
blood agar media after incubation for 5 days, and cell morphology was
assessed with Gram-stained preparations. Growth patterns in ambient
air, in 5% CO2, and under anaerobic conditions were
recorded after prolonged incubation (5 to 10 days). Production of
catalase was tested with 15% H2O2, and
reduction of nitrate was tested by a disk test (24).
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 was used as an indicator
strain for the CAMP test (synergistic hemolysis) on brucella blood
agar. The enzyme tests described in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Table 2 were
performed, and incubation was at 36°C for 4 h in air, according
to the manufacturer's instructions, with individual diagnostic tablets
(Rosco, Taastrup, Denmark). The tests were for hydrolysis of
urea and esculin and production of
-fucosidase,
-glucosidase,
-galactosidase
(o-nitrophenyl-
-D-galactopyranoside [ONPG]),
-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase (
-NAG),
-mannosidase, and arginine dihydrolase (the last two tests were
conducted only for A. israelii and A. gerencseriae), L-arabinose, and
-xylosidase (for
differentiation of Arcanobacterium bernardiae and
Actinomyces turicensis, see Fig. 2). To assess the
uniformity of reactivity by different test systems, the reference
strains were additionally tested in parallel with the API ZYM kit
(bioMerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) by incubation at 36°C for
4 h and a test based on substrates linked to 4-methylumbelliferyl
[4-MU; Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.; 20 µl of substrate in
N-tris (hydroxymethyl) methyl-2-aminoethanesulfonic acid
buffer plus a loopful of bacterial cells from colonies on a blank paper
disk (Oxoid, Unipath, Basingstow, England)], with incubation at 36°C
for 15 to 30 min (5, 15). Inocula for the testing of
enzyme activities were from 3 to 4 days of growth on brucella plates
and were adjusted to a cell turbidity equal or greater than a McFarland
no. 4 standard in saline for Rosco diagnostic tablets and a McFarland 5 to 6 standard in sterile water for the API-ZYM kit. Tests for the
fermentation of arabinose, glucose, maltose, mannitol, raffinose,
rhamnose, sucrose, trehalose, and xylose used prereduced, anaerobically
sterilized (PRAS) biochemical media incubated at 36°C for a minimum
of 5 days (24). If no or scanty growth (<2+) was
obtained, 50 µl of 10% Tween 80 was added to 5 ml to promote growth.
 |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
The flowchart for the preliminary identification of
Actinomyces species by a limited number of rapid,
cost-effective tests is depicted in Fig.
1. The flowchart for the preliminary
identification of Arcanobacterium species and
Actinobaculum schalii is depicted in Fig
2. The more comprehensive identification
scheme is presented in Table
2.

View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Flowchart for preliminary identification of
Actinomyces species. All enzyme reactions were performed
with Rosco diagnostic tablets. *, see Table 2; ssp., subsp.; -fuc,
-fucosidase.
|
|

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Flowchart for preliminary identification of
Arcanobacterium species and A. schalii. All
enzyme reactions were performed with Rosco diagnostic tablets.
|
|
The group of gram-positive, non-spore-forming bacilli consisting of
several genera can reliably be differentiated from each other only by
their metabolic end products. Gas-liquid chromatography should be used
for differentiation of these genera. The separation of
Arcanobacterium, Actinobaculum, and
Actinomyces from other genera can be very difficult without
the demonstration of succinic acid as a metabolic end product. In
addition to succinic acid, the first two genera produce acetic acid and
Actinomyces produces considerable amounts of lactic acid.
Furthermore, the CAMP test reaction, catalase production nitrate
reduction, and the production of
-galactosidase,
-NAG, and
-xylosidase are important tests for discrimination of these three
genera from each other (Table 2; Fig. 2). Classically,
Actinomyces species have been described as branching rods,
but many of the recently described species are seldom branching.
In a deviation from the information in the current literature, we
noticed that not only A. odontolyticus but also three other Actinomyces species, namely, A. graevenitzii,
A. radicidentis, and A. urogenitalis, produced
pigment. All colonies of A. odontolyticus showed
brown or purple red pigmentation, A. graevenitzii showed a
dark, almost black, pigmentation, A. radicidentis showed
brown pigmentation and Actinomyces urogenitalis showed a
reddish pigmentation on rabbit laked blood agar after incubation for 5 days. However, on brucella agar A. graevenitzii colonies
were nonpigmented, confirming the original description by Pascual Ramos
et al. (19). Colonies of the type strain of A. radicidentis were brownish, whereas those of A. urogenitalis were pinkish beige on brucella agar (after 5 days)
and resembled colonies of A. odontolyticus (pinkish, "old rosa"). It is noteworthy that many other Actinomyces
strains may exhibit some brownish color after prolonged incubation (6 to 11 days) (2); however, this is not usually regarded as
real pigment production but, rather, is a result of medium decomposition.
In contrast to smooth and nonadherent colonies of A. odontolyticus, A. radicidentis, and A. urogenitalis, colonies of A. graevenitzii were rough
and dry and adhered to blood agar, as described previously (19). In addition to deviating colony characteristics, in
our study the definite differentiation of A. odontolyticus,
A. graevenitzii, and A. urogenitalis was
accomplished by testing for production of
-NAG: A. graevenitzii and A. urogenitalis were positive and A. odontolyticus was negative. Furthermore, esculin
hydrolysis discriminates A. graevenitzii (negative) and
A. urogenitalis (positive). The strikingly coccoid
microscopic morphology of A. radicidentis (4)
easily separated it from the other three pigment producers. On the
other hand, this atypical morphology may lead one to falsely suspect
the presence of gram-positive cocci and thus result in failure to
identify the species as a member of the Actinomyces genus.
Catalase production has previously been considered the key
characteristic for A. viscosus only. However, two additional
catalase-producing Actinomyces species, Actinomyces
neuii (two subspecies [7]) and A. radicidentis (4), currently exist in the genus. To
confirm the separation of these newly described catalase-positive
Actinomyces species from A. viscosus, we
recommend testing for pigment production and the CAMP test reaction
(Table 2). A. neuii can be further differentiated to the
subspecies level by the nitrate reaction (7). We also
found the type strain of A. neuii subsp.
anitratus to be lipase positive and the type strain
of A. neuii subsp. neuii to be lipase
negative, characteristics that may be used for the separation of these
two subspecies.
Previous published data on enzyme reactions and fermentation tests can
be very difficult to interpret because they are often obtained by using
different commercial kits and in-house systems that deviate in their
substrate specificities, buffering capacities, and hence,
sensitivities. Therefore, to allow direct comparisons, it is of utmost
importance to carefully describe in publications the system or method
by which the reactions were obtained (see the footnotes to Table 2).
In the present study, to compare different systems for testing, of
enzyme activity, the reactivities of
-fucosidase,
-glucosidase,
-galactosidase, and
-NAG were tested for the reference strains in
parallel by using individual Rosco tablets, 4-MU-linked substrates as a
rapid filter paper spot test, and API ZYM kits. Table
3 presents the reactions obtained by
these three test methods. Variation was seen mainly with
-glucosidase reactivities (three negative reactions with 4-MU-linked
substrates and two negative reactions and one positive reaction with
the API ZYM kit) and
-galactosidase reactivities two negative
reactions with the API ZYM kit). In addition to reference strains, the
-fucosidase reactivities of 33 clinical strains of A. odontolyticus were tested in parallel by using Rosco tablets and
4-MU-linked substrates. Thirteen (33%) of these A. odontolyticus strains were
-fucosidase positive by using Rosco
tablets, whereas only one (3%) isolate was positive by the method with
4-MU-linked substrates. The discrepancy may be explained by the
substrate avidities or the specificities of the different test systems
(1).
The phenotypic differentiation of A. israelii and A. gerencseriae (previously A. israelii serotype II) may
pose problems due to a lack of discriminatory tests. Their biochemical
reactions are very similar; however, the capability of A. israelii to ferment arabinose seems to separate it from A. gerencseriae (Table 2). According to the original description by
Johnson et al. (10), the majority (89%) of A. israelii strains ferment arabinose. In contrast, in a recent study
in which species-specific oligonucleotide probes were used for
identification of A. gerencseriae and A. israelii, Jauh-Shun et al. (9) reported that only the
reference strain of A. israelii fermented arabinose but that
none of the clinical strains fermented arabinose. The result may be due
to different substrate specificities and buffering conditions in their
commercial biochemical test kit (Microbact 24AN system; Pacific
Diagnostics) compared to those for PRAS biochemicals. In the present
study, the arabinose-fermenting strains were identified as A. israelii and arabinose-nonfermenting strains were identified as
A. gerencseriae. The separation was supported by the finding that all clinical A. israelii strains tested were positive
for mannitol fermentation and arginine dihydrolase, whereas all strains of arabinose-negative A. gerencseriae were negative for
these reactions. By using the 4-MU-linked fluorogenic substrates,
Maiden et al. (15) reported negative
-mannosidase
reactivity for A. israelii but positive
-mannosidase
reactivity for A. gerencseriae. This reactivity pattern is
listed in the user's guide for Rosco diagnostic tablets as well.
Therefore, using Rosco diagnostic tablets, we tested both the type
strains and seven clinical isolates representing each species for
-mannosidase reactivity. The type strain and six clinical strains of
A. israelii were negative, as described previously
(15), whereas only the type strain and one clinical strain
of A. gerencseriae were positive.
In our flowchart (Fig. 1), esculin hydrolysis was used to separate
A. meyeri and A. turicensis (negative) from
Actinomyces radingae (positive). Furthermore, tests for
production of
-NAG glucosaminidase and
-galactosidase were
positive for A. radingae and negative for A. turicensis. Although we found that both type strains were
-fucosidase positive (with Rosco tablets, 4-MU-linked substrates,
and the API ZYM kit), our previous experience shows that the production
of
-fucosidase is a variable feature of A. turicensis
among clinical strains. This probably reflects the vast heterogeneity
of the former Actinomyces pyogenes-like
(26) and A. meyeri-like (2)
organisms that are included in A. turicensis (25). The separation of A. meyeri from A. turicensis is difficult. However, the type strain and four
clinical isolates of A. meyeri (confirmed by molecular
biology-based methods) were positive for both
-galactosidase and
-NAG by the test with Rosco tablets, whereas the type strain and
five clinical isolates of A. turicensis were negative (see
Table 2). Classically, A. meyeri has been described
as an obligatory anaerobic organism (3). As A. turicensis grows both anerobically and aerobically
(25), aerotolerance may also be a phenotypic test that can
be used to discriminate between these two phenotypically close species.
A. turicensis may be differentiated from
Arcanobacterium bernardiae by positivity for xylose
fermentation or a rapid
-xylosidase reaction (Fig. 2; Table 2). An
unexpected finding was that Actinomyces funkei, A. meyeri, and A. radingae isolates, including the type
strains, were positive for the CAMP test reaction.
The rapid enzyme tests that were used in our flowchart (Fig. 1) failed
to separate Actinomyces europaeus, A. georgiae,
and A. gerencseriae from each other. Instead, the
fermentation of raffinose, rhamnose, sucrose, and trehalose could be
used for identification (Table 2). According to the original
descriptions (6, 10), A. europaeus does not
ferment any of these carbohydrates, whereas A. georgiae
ferments rhamnose, sucrose, and trehalose and A. gerencseriae ferments raffinose, sucrose, and trehalose. Surprisingly, in our tests, in which we also used the PRAS
biochemicals, the type strain of A. gerencseriae did not
ferment raffinose but was positive for rhamnose fermentation. However,
the results for 12 clinical strains tested confirmed the original
description of A. gerencseriae (10).
Although the identification of these gram-positive rods to the species
level possesses major problems, it is important to clarify their roles
in both oral and nonoral ecologies and infections. The phenotypic
scheme presented here can help to identify the current members of the
genera Actinomyces, Arcanobacterium, and Actinobaculum to the species level. In cases of unresolved
results with the current scheme for potential actinomycete isolates
from invasive sites, such as blood, and from clinically significant infections, the strains should be sent to a reference laboratory for
definite confirmation of their identities. Commercial identification kits are widely used in clinical laboratories; however, the lack of
data on the novel species interferes with successful precise identification. Therefore, evaluation of the applicability and accuracy
of commercial kits for the rapid identification of
Actinomyces species is in progress in our laboratory with
the intent to further facilitate the task of clinical and oral
microbiology laboratories.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
This work was partially funded by the Finnish Dental Society and
Research Foundation of Orion Corporation, Espoo, Finland.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Anaerobe
Reference Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, National Public
Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, FIN-00300 Helsinki, Finland.
Phone: 358-9-47448254. Fax: 358-9-47448238. E-mail:
nanna.sarkonen{at}ktl.fi.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Bascomb, S., and M. Manafi.
1998.
Use of enzyme tests in characterization and identification of aerobic and facultatively anaerobic gram-positive cocci.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
11:318-340[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Brander, M., and H. Jousimies-Somer.
1992.
Evaluation of the RapID ANA II and API ZYM systems for identification of Actinomyces species from clinical specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:3112-3116[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Cato, E.,
W. Moore,
G. Nygaard, and L. Holdeman.
1984.
Actinomyces meyeri sp. nov., specific epithet rev.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
34:487-489[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Collins, M. D.,
L. Hoyles,
S. Kalfas,
G. Sundquist,
T. Monsen,
N. Nikolaitchouk, and E. Falsen.
2000.
Characterization of Actinomyces isolates from infected root canals of teeth: description of Actinomyces radicidentis sp. nov.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
38:3399-3403[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Durmaz, B.,
H. R. Jousimies-Somer, and S. M. Finegold.
1995.
Enzymatic profiles of Prevotella, Porphyromonas, and Bacteroides species obtained with the API ZYM system and Rosco diagnostic tablets.
Clin. Infect. Dis.
20(Suppl. 2):192-194.
|
| 6.
|
Funke, G.,
N. Alvarez,
C. Pascual,
E. Falsen,
E. Akervall,
L. Sabbe,
L. Schouls,
N. Weiss, and M. D. Collins.
1997.
Actinomyces europaeus sp. nov., isolated from human clinical specimens.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
47:687-692[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 7.
|
Funke, G.,
S. Stubbs,
A. von Graevenitz, and M. D. Collins.
1994.
Assignment of human-derived CDC group 1 coryneform bacteria and CDC group 1-like coryneform bacteria to the genus Actinomyces as Actinomyces neuii subsp. neuii sp. nov., subsp. nov., and Actinomyces neuii subsp. anitratus subsp. nov.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
44:167-171[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Hall, V.,
G. L. O'Neill,
J. T. Magee, and B. I. Duerden.
1999.
Development of amplified 16S ribosomal DNA restriction analysis for identification of Actinomyces species and comparison with pyrolysis-mass spectrometry and conventional biochemical tests.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:2255-2261[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Jauh-Shun, C.,
T. Vinh,
J. K. Davies, and D. Figdor.
1999.
Molecular approaches to the differentiation of Actinomyces species.
Oral Microbiol. Immunol.
14:250-256[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Johnson, J. L.,
L. V. H. Moore,
B. Kaneko, and W. E. C. Moore.
1990.
Actinomyces georgiae sp. nov., Actinomyces gerencseriae sp. nov., designation of two genospecies of Actinomyces naeslundii, and inclusion of A. naeslundii serotypes II and III and Actinomyces viscosus serotype II in A. naeslundii genospecies 2.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
40:273-286[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Lawson, P.,
E. Falsen,
E. Åkervall,
P. Vandamme, and M. D. Collins.
1997.
Characterization of some Actinomyces-like isolates from human clinical specimens: reclassification of Actinomyces suis (Soltys and Spratling) as Actinobaculum suis comb. nov. and description of Actinobaculum schalii sp. nov.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
47:899-903[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Lawson, P.,
N. Nikolaitchouk,
E. Falsen,
K. Westling, and M. D. Collins.
2001.
Actinomyces funkei sp. nov., isolated from human clinical specimens.
Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.
51:853-855[Abstract].
|
| 13.
|
Liljemark, W. F.,
C. G. Bloomquist,
C. L. Bandt,
B. L. Pihlström,
J. E. Hinrichs, and L. F. Wolff.
1993.
Comparison of the distribution of Actinomyces in dental plaque on inserted enamel and natural tooth surfaces in periodontal health and disease.
Oral Microbiol. Immunol.
8:5-15[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Magee, J.
1993.
Whole-organism fingerprinting, p. 383-427.
In
M. Goodfellow, and A. G. O'Donnell (ed.), Handbook of bacterial systematics. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom.
|
| 15.
|
Maiden, M.,
A. Tanner, and P. Macuch.
1996.
Rapid characterization of periodontal bacteria isolates using fluorogenic substrate tests.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
34:376-384[Abstract].
|
| 16.
|
Nikolaitchouk, N.,
L. Hoyles,
E. Falsen,
J. M. Grainger, and M. D. Collins.
2000.
Characterization of Actinomyces isolates from samples from the human urogenital tract: description of Actinomyces urogenitalis sp. nov.
Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.
50:1649-1654[Abstract].
|
| 17.
|
Nyvad, B., and M. Kilian.
1987.
Microbiology of the early colonization of human enamel and root surfaces in vivo.
Scand. J. Dent. Res.
95:369-380[Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Pascual Ramos, C.,
G. Foster, and M. D. Collins.
1997.
Phylogenetic analysis of the genus Actinomyces based on 16S rRNA gene sequences: description of Arcanobacterium phocae sp. nov., Arcanobacterium bernardiae comb. nov., and Arcanobacterium pyogenes comb. nov.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
47:46-53[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Pascual Ramos, C.,
E. Falsen,
N. Alvarez,
E. Åkervaii,
B. Sjöden, and M. D. Collins.
1997.
Actinomyces graevenitzii sp. nov., isolated from human clinical specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
61:2011-2014.
|
| 20.
|
Sabbe, L.,
D. van de Merwe,
L. Schouls,
A. Bergmans,
M. Vaneechoutte, and P. Vandamme.
1999.
Clinical spectrum of infections due to the newly described Actinomyces species A. turicensis, A. radingae, and A. europaeus.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:8-13[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Sarkonen, N.,
E. Könönen,
P. Summanen,
A. Kanervo,
A. Takala, and H. Jousimies-Somer.
2000.
Oral colonization with Actinomyces species in infants by two years of age.
J. Dent. Res.
79:864-867[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Schaal, K. P.
1986.
Genus Actinomyces, p. 1383-1418.
In
P. H. A. Sneath, N. S. Mair, M. E. Sharpe, and J. G. Holt (ed.), Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology, vol. 2. The Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md.
|
| 23.
|
Schaal, K. P., and H. J. Lee.
1992.
Actinomycete infections in humans a review.
Gene
115:201-211[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 24.
|
Summanen, P.,
E. J. Baron,
D. M. Citron,
C. A. Strong,
H. M. Wexler, and S. M. Finegold.
1993.
Wadsworth anaerobic bacteriology manual, 5th ed.
Star Publishing, Belmont, Calif.
|
| 25.
|
Vandamme, P.,
E. Falsen,
M. Vancanneyt,
M. Van Esbroeck,
D. Van de Merwe,
A. Bergmans,
L. Schouls, and L. Sabbe.
1998.
Characterization of Actinomyces turicensis and Actinomyces radingae strains from human clinical samples.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
48:503-510[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Wüst, J.,
G. Martinetti Lucchini,
J. Lüthy-Hottenstein,
F. Brun, and M. Altwegg.
1993.
Isolation of gram-positive rods that resemble but are clearly distinct from Actinomyces pyogenes from mixed wound infections.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:1127-1135[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Wüst, J.,
S. Stubbs,
N. Weiss,
G. Funke, and M. D. Collins.
1995.
Assignment of Actinomyces pyogenes-like (CDC coryneform group E) bacteria to the genus Actinomyces as Actinomyces radingae sp. nov. and Actinomyces turicensis sp. nov.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
20:76-81[Medline].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November 2001, p. 3955-3961, Vol. 39, No. 11
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.11.3955-3961.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Reinhard, M., Prag, J., Kemp, M., Andresen, K., Klemmensen, B., Hojlyng, N., Sorensen, S. H., Christensen, J. J.
(2005). Ten Cases of Actinobaculum schaalii Infection: Clinical Relevance, Bacterial Identification, and Antibiotic Susceptibility. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 5305-5308
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Tietz, A., Aldridge, K. E., Figueroa, J. E.
(2005). Disseminated Coinfection with Actinomyces graevenitzii and Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Case Report and Review of the Literature. J. Clin. Microbiol.
43: 3017-3022
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Santala, A.-M., Sarkonen, N., Hall, V., Carlson, P., Jousimies-Somer, H., Kononen, E.
(2004). Evaluation of Four Commercial Test Systems for Identification of Actinomyces and Some Closely Related Species. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 418-420
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kaetzke, A., Korner, H., Kneist, S., Eschrich, K.
(2003). Oral Actinomyces Isolates Forming Red Colonies on Brain Heart Blood Agar Can Be Unambiguously Classified as A. odontolyticus by Macroscopic Examination. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 3729-3731
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Clarridge, J. E. III, Zhang, Q.
(2002). Genotypic Diversity of Clinical Actinomyces Species: Phenotype, Source, and Disease Correlation among Genospecies. J. Clin. Microbiol.
40: 3442-3448
[Abstract]
[Full Text]