Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2001, p. 2713-2716, Vol. 39, No. 7
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.7.2713-2716.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Basis of the Superiority of Cefoperazone Amphotericin
Teicoplanin for Isolating Campylobacter upsaliensis
from Stools
Catherine
Byrne,1
Deirdre
Doherty,1
Adele
Mooney,1
Margaret
Byrne,1
David
Woodward,2
Wendy
Johnson,2
Frank
Rodgers,2 and
Billy
Bourke1,3,*
Children's Research Centre, Our Lady's
Hospital for Sick Children,1 and
Department of Paediatrics, The Conway Institute, University
College Dublin,3 Dublin 12, Ireland, and
National Laboratory for Enteric Pathogens, Canadian Science
Centre for Human and Animal Health, Laboratory Centre for Disease
Control, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada2
Received 27 December 2000/Returned for modification 10 January
2001/Accepted 12 April 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The optimum method for isolating Campylobacter
upsaliensis from stools has not been clearly defined. In a
preliminary study, cefoperazone amphotericin teicoplanin (CAT)
selective medium isolated six C. upsaliensis strains
which were not detected using modified cefoperazone charcoal
deoxycholate (mCCDA). In order to identify the factors that underlie
the superiority of CAT over mCCDA for isolating C. upsaliensis, we examined the effect of incubation time and
antibiotic content of culture media on the growth of C. upsaliensis isolates using semiquantitative methods. The
recovery of a subgroup of C. upsaliensis isolates from
seeded stool specimens was also evaluated. Differences in growth of
C. upsaliensis on CAT and mCCDA were modest and
were not explained by the antibiotic profiles of the two
media. Recovery of C. upsaliensis from spiked human
feces on CAT was superior to that on mCCDA at lower concentrations of
organisms (103 CFU/ml). We conclude that although CAT
is more suitable than mCCDA for the isolation of
C. upsaliensis from stools, the superiority of CAT for
detecting this organism is not accounted for by the antibiotic
composition of the medium.
 |
TEXT |
The prevalence of
Campylobacter upsaliensis currently may be underestimated
due to the widespread use of unsuitable isolation procedures (2,
4). The poor growth of C. upsaliensis on modified cefoperazone charcoal deoxycholate (mCCDA), commonly used for the detection of other thermophilic campylobacters
(7), has been attributed to its susceptibility to
cefoperazone (2). Techniques based on membrane filtration
are among the most efficient for isolating C. upsaliensis (1, 8, 12). However, filtration is costly
and labor-intensive and may be unsuitable for samples containing small
numbers of organisms. Although PCR-based (11, 13, 14, 17)
and enzyme immunoassay-based (10) assays are promising,
their roles for detecting C. upsaliensis have yet to be defined.
Using a modification of blood-free selective media containing
reduced levels of cefoperazone, Aspinall et al. (2,
3) demonstrated recovery of C. upsaliensis
on cefoperazone amphotericin teicoplanin selective medium (CAT) that
was equivalent to recovery using membrane filtration and considerably
superior to recovery on mCCDA. Subsequently, CAT was shown to
be superior to mCCDA for the isolation of C. upsaliensis using a semiquantitative plating method
(6). However, not all workers have found CAT to be ideal for recovering C. upsaliensis from clinical specimens
(9), and the reasons for these contradictory results are unclear.
In a study aimed at identifying fresh clinical isolates of
C. upsaliensis in stools of children and animals in
Dublin, we noted that six C. upsaliensis isolates were
recovered on CAT while none were recovered using incubation on
mCCDA. To further investigate the reasons for the different
yield of C. upsaliensis using these two regimens, we
examined the antibiotic sensitivities of these six isolates. In
addition, we characterized the effects of incubation time and
antibiotic composition of media on the growth of a group of
C. upsaliensis isolates obtained from the
Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (LCDC), Winnipeg, Canada.
Finally, we compared the recovery from spiked fecal samples of
C. upsaliensis strains using these two media.
The bacteria used in this study comprised 11 C. upsaliensis strains obtained from the LCDC, 6 clinical isolates of
C. upsaliensis obtained from human and animal stool
specimens at Our Lady's Hospital, Crumlin, Ireland, and
C. upsaliensis ATCC 43954. Thermophilic campylobacters
were incubated at 37°C under microaerophilic conditions, generated using the CampyGen system (CN35; Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, Hampshire, England) to give approximately 6% oxygen and 10%
carbon dioxide without evolution of hydrogen in anaerobic jars.
Media used included Columbia agar base (Oxoid CM331) containing 5%
defibrinated horse blood and a Campylobacter
blood-free selective agar base containing charcoal (Oxoid
CM739). CCDA selective supplement (Oxoid), providing 32 mg of
cefoperazone and 10 mg of amphotericin per liter, and CAT selective
supplement (Oxoid), providing 8 mg of cefoperazone, 10 mg of
amphotericin, and 4 mg of teicoplanin per liter, were added where
appropriate. The in-house supplements amphotericin (Fungizone; Squibb)
and teicoplanin (Targocid; Marion Merrell) were added to base agars,
where indicated. MICs of cefoperazone were determined using the Etest
(AB Biodisk, Solna Sweden). Brucella broth (Difco Laboratories,
Detroit, Mich.) was used for suspension and dilution of organisms.
McFarland tubes were used for standardization of inoculum (bioMerieux,
Marcy l'Etoile, France). Stools used for spiking studies were first
prescreened for enteric pathogens, including C. upsaliensis.
The original purpose of the screening study was to identify fresh
clinical isolates of C. upsaliensis for pathogenicity
studies. Over a 9-month period, a total of 2,064 stool specimens from
hospitalized and nonhospitalized children with diarrhea were cultured
on mCCDA and CAT agar. Stools were directly inoculated onto
plates. mCCDA plates were incubated at 37°C in a
microaerophilic atmosphere for 48 h in the clinical laboratory.
The aim of the screening study was to achieve a maximum possible yield
of C. upsaliensis. Therefore, CAT cultures were
maintained for a longer incubation period of 96 h, as prolonged
incubation time is associated with increased yield of organisms. The
frequency of isolation of C. upsaliensis over the time
period was retrospectively compared on both media. In addition, in
order to increase the yield of isolates with which to work, rectal
swabs from 24 asymptomatic animals (17 dogs, 4 cats, and 3 rabbits)
attending a veterinary clinic were cultured on CAT agar and
mCCDA for 96 h. As these samples were not processed by
the clinical laboratory, the incubation period on mCCDA also
was extended to 96 h. All Campylobacter species were
fully identified using an API Campy system (API 20800; bioMerieux) or
were identified at the Campylobacter Reference Laboratory, Public Health Laboratory Service, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, United Kingdom.
Eleven strains of C. upsaliensis obtained from the LCDC
and the type strain were cultured on Columbia blood agar without
additives for 48 to 72 h at 37°C. Suspensions of each
strain were made in brucella broth to a density equivalent to a number
6 McFarland standard. Ten microliters of each suspension were
inoculated in duplicate on to CAT agar and mCCDA agar. This
inoculum was streaked using a standard disposable 10-µl loop by the
ecometric method described by Corry et al. (7). Briefly,
the primary inoculum was spread using five parallel strokes,
approximately 5 mm apart, over sector A. A fresh loop was used to
repeat this pattern, at a 45° angle to sector A, forming sector B. This process was repeated three more times (sectors C through E). All
plates were incubated in a microaeropilic atmosphere at 37°C, and
growth was assessed ecometrically after 48, 72, and 96 h. The
growth on each plate was expressed as the absolute growth index (AGI),
depending on the number of streaks with visible growth. Growth on all
five streaks (A through E) was designated an AGI of 5, growth on A through D was given an AGI of 4, growth on A through C was given an AGI
of 3, and so on. A preliminary pilot study confirmed no appreciable
effect on C. upsaliensis growth of repeated opening of
gas jars compared with undisturbed incubation over 96 h (data not shown).
Etests with cefoperazone were performed on the six C. upsaliensis isolates recovered from stool samples during the
screening study. Etests were performed in duplicate for each isolate.
In order to examine the possibility that the composition of the agar base or the presence of teicoplanin could influence cefoperazone sensitivity results, each strain was subjected to Etests on blood agar
base and charcoal base, both with and without 4 mg of teicoplanin per
liter. Plates were dried for 30 min prior to use. Each set of plates
was swab inoculated using the same suspension of organism in brucella
broth at a 0.5 to 1.0 McFarland standard, according to the
manufacturer's instructions for use with campylobacters. Plates were
allowed to dry for 30 min at an ambient temperature prior to
application of the strips. Plates were incubated in a microaerophilic
environment, examined after 48, 72 and 96 h, and promptly returned
to microaerophilic conditions.
The 11 LCDC C. upsaliensis isolates and the type strain
used in ecometric plating studies were subjected to antibiotic disk sensitivity testing (30-µg cefoperazone disk). Isolates were tested in duplicate on Columbia blood agar and incubated under microaerophilic conditions.
The recovery from spiked human feces of C. upsaliensis
on CAT and mCCDA was compared. Five strains of C. upsaliensis obtained from the LCDC that had been cultured on
Columbia blood agar for 72 h were suspended in brucella broth to
produce a turbidity equivalent to a number 6 McFarland standard. Serial
10-fold dilutions of each strain to extinction were made in brucella
broth. One hundred microliters of each dilution was then added to 900 µl (1/10 dilution) of human feces and vortexed. Ten microliters of
each spiked sample was plated in duplicate on CAT and mCCDA.
The viable count of each dilution for each strain added to stool was
determined by plating 10 µl of each dilution in duplicate on Columbia
blood agar. Inocula were spread over the entire surface of the plates using sterile "hockey stick" spreaders and incubated at 37°C for 96 h in a microaerophilic environment.
Preliminary screening study of C. upsaliensis in
humans and animals.
The screening study yielded a total of six
isolates of C. upsaliensis. These isolates comprised
one human and five canine strains, identified from a total of 2,088 clinical specimens. The patient was a 10-year-old child with chronic
diarrhea and abdominal pain. No other pathogens were identified in the
stools of this child. The five dogs with C. upsaliensis
in stools were asymptomatic.
All the C. upsaliensis strains were isolated on CAT,
while none were recovered on mCCDA. The human fecal sample
that yielded a C. upsaliensis isolate had been
incubated on mCCDA for 48 h, according to our standard
clinical laboratory practice, compared with 96 h of incubation on
CAT. However, the five canine isolates of C. upsaliensis also were recovered only on CAT, despite incubation for the longer period of 96 h on both media. It was also
noteworthy that of a total of 44 Campylobacter strains
isolated during the study period, five others (four C. jejuni and one C. fetus isolate) grew only on CAT.
Three percent of CAT cultures (in contrast to no mCCDA
cultures) were uninterpretable due to overgrowth of fecal flora.
Comparison of C. upsaliensis growth using the
ecometric method.
In the initial screening study, human clinical
specimens benefited from an incubation period on CAT that was twice
that of mCCDA, raising the possibility that the differences
in incubation period accounted, at least in part, for the
isolation of the human C. upsaliensis strain. To
address this question we compared the growth of C. upsaliensis on both media after 48, 72, and 96 h of
incubation using a semiquantitative technique (the ecometric method). A
preliminary pilot experiment determined that growth did not occur on
either medium after 24 h of incubation, and thereafter, plates
were no longer examined at this time point. C. upsaliensis ATCC 43954 failed to grow on both CAT and
mCCDA media AGI = 0). Growth was supported,
however, on the charcoal base without cefoperazone. For the remaining
11 isolates, CAT showed a marginal benefit over mCCDA (Table
1) with 9 and 10 isolates growing well
(AGI
2) at 72 and 96 h of incubation, respectively, on
CAT, compared with 7 and 9 isolates with an AGI of
2 on
mCCDA, after the same incubation period. Colonies at all time
points tended to be smaller for C. upsaliensis growing
on mCCDA than for C. upsaliensis on CAT.
However, all 11 isolates were successfully cultured on both media by
96 h.
These experiments also were performed using charcoal medium with
amphotericin and 8 mg of cefoperazone per liter but without teicoplanin
(i.e. CAT without teicoplanin) to evaluate the potential modification
by teicoplanin of the growth of C. upsaliensis.
However, there was no appreciable difference in growth in the presence or absence of teicoplanin (data not shown). Taken together, these data
show that the differences in the abilities of CAT and mCCDA to support growth of C. upsaliensis are not great and
should not on their own have accounted for the divergence in recovery
of the organism from clinical specimens observed in the screening study.
Antibiotic sensitivity testing.
The six clinical isolates were
subjected to antibiotic sensitivity testing using Etests. Swarming of
organisms coupled with hazy growth at the edge of the zone of
inhibition affected precise readings of Etest results. MICs for the
human isolate were variable and showed poor reproducibility. However,
all the canine isolates were resistant to cefoperazone: two strains (D4
and D6) showed no zone of inhibition on any of the medium combinations
(i.e., MIC > 256 mg/liter), MICs for two isolates (D1 and D5)
ranged from 64 to 256 mg/liter, and the MIC for another isolate
(D2) ranged from 32 to 96 mg/liter. For both the type strain and the human clinical isolate, MICs tended to be lower when the organisms were
cultured on charcoal or in the presence of teicoplanin. However, the
presence of teicoplanin did not increase the MIC of cefoperazone for
any strain of C. upsaliensis. The type strain, used as
a control in these experiments, was cefoperazone sensitive (MIC, 0.094 to 0.75 mg/liter), thus accounting for its failure to grow on CAT medium. It was noteworthy that all clinical isolates of C. upsaliensis also were successfully subcultured on mCCDA
following initial isolation on CAT.
Antibiotic disk sensitivity testing of C. upsaliensis
isolates used in the ecometric plating studies yielded similar results. The type strain was very sensitive to cefoperazone, with a radius of
growth inhibition of 46 mm. However, all of the other isolates tested
showed growth right up to the disk (no inhibition). Taken together,
these data indicate that factors other than those relating to the
concentration of cefoperazone in CAT and mCCDA account for
the differences in yield of C. upsaliensis.
Comparison of CAT and mCCDA for the recovery of
C. upsaliensis from spiked human feces.
From the
fecal specimens spiked with approximately 103 CFU of
C. upsaliensis per ml all five strains tested were
recovered using CAT (Table 2). However,
only one of these five strains was recovered on mCCDA at this
concentration. When the concentration of C. upsaliensis
organisms in stools was increased to 104 CFU/ml or more,
recovery of all five isolates on mCCDA was achieved. Therefore, there was approximately a 1-log difference in the
sensitivity of mCCDA compared to that of CAT for the recovery
of C. upsaliensis from seeded stool specimens. All of
the strains used in the fecal spiking experiment were resistant to
cefoperazone in antibiotic disk sensitivity testing. Therefore, the
increased yield of C. upsaliensis on CAT compared with
mCCDA is not explained by intermediate cefoperazone
sensitivities in this group of organisms.
C. upsaliensis has been widely implicated as a
potential human pathogen (4, 5, 8, 15, 16, 18). However,
isolation of C. upsaliensis from clinical specimens has
proved challenging, and this difficulty presents a substantial barrier
to achieving a better understanding of its role in human disease. CAT
medium was developed to contain a relatively low concentration of
cefoperazone, as the presence of cefoperazone was felt likely to
underlie the inefficiency of mCCDA for isolation of
C. upsaliensis (2). However, our
experiments in vitro indicate that even when C. upsaliensis isolates demonstrate resistance at or above the level
of cefoperazone used in mCCDA and the incubation period is
extended to 96 h, CAT still performs better than mCCDA.
In particular, the strains that were successfully isolated from
clinical samples were generally highly resistant to this antibiotic.
Although the level of resistance to cefoperazone observed among
C. upsaliensis isolates in this study was in excess of
that previously reported, it is noteworthy that the MIC of cefoperazone
was
32 mg/liter for 86% of isolates in the original study by
Aspinall et al. (2). Whether all C. upsaliensis isolates demonstrate this level of cefoperazone
resistance is unknown. However, data from this and other studies
(2, 3) suggest that the sensitivity of the type strain to
cefoperazone is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, it would
appear that factors other than, or in addition to, cefoperazone
concentration underlie the superiority of CAT medium over
mCCDA for isolating C. upsaliensis.
The other principal difference between mCCDA and CAT is the
presence in CAT of teicoplanin (added in order to suppress growth of
enterococci in stool samples). In this study we have examined the
effects of teicoplanin on growth of C. upsaliensis. We
found no evidence that the presence of teicoplanin in media encouraged the growth of C. upsaliensis, either directly or by
reducing the sensitivity of the organism to cefoperazone.
The results of fecal spiking experiments in this study suggest that the
improved efficiency of isolation of C. upsaliensis on
CAT compared with that on mCCDA reflects an enhanced ability of CAT to detect small numbers of viable organisms in stool. However, it is not clear what attributes of CAT medium account for this improved
yield. Our data do not point to any single component of CAT, either
alone or in combination, that adequately explains the improved yield of
C. upsaliensis observed for CAT in clinical studies. It
is possible that CAT exerts a beneficial effect indirectly on isolation
of this organism. We speculate that either the different antibiotic
profiles of CAT and mCCDA alter some component or product of
the fecal microflora, or exposure of C. upsaliensis to
feces alters the sensitivity in vivo of C. upsaliensis
to cefoperazone, thereby enhancing the isolation of C. upsaliensis. These hypotheses now warrant validation in clinical
studies, as the possibility that the antibiotic composition of media
may enhance target organism isolation indirectly may have relevance to
culture techniques for other fastidious enteric pathogens.
Finally, data from this and previous (6) studies that CAT
may be more productive than mCCDA for
Campylobacter species in addition to C. upsaliensis. Because overgrowth of fecal flora may occur more
commonly with CAT than mCCDA, further studies are warranted
before routinely recommending CAT as an alternative selective medium
for all thermophilic campylobacters. Nonetheless, in populations where
C. upsaliensis is known to be prevalent in stools
(8, 12) and in epidemiological studies of
Campylobacter, CAT should be used in preference to other
Campylobacter selection media.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
This work was supported by grants from The Childrens Medical and
Research Foundation and The Health Research Board, Ireland.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: The Children's
Research Centre, Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin,
Dublin 12, Ireland. Phone: 353-1-4556901. Fax: 353-1-4555307. E-mail: BILLY.BOURKE{at}ucd.ie.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Albert, M. J.,
W. Tee, and A. S. Leach.
1992.
Comparison of a blood-free medium and a filtration technique for the isolation of Campylobacter spp. from diarrhoeal stools of hospitalised patients in Central Australia.
J. Med. Microbiol.
37:176-179[Abstract].
|
| 2.
|
Aspinall, S. T.,
D. R. A Wareing,
P. G. Hayward, and D. N. Hutchinson.
1993.
Selective medium for thermophilic campylobacters including Campylobacter upsaliensis.
J. Clin. Pathol.
46:829-831[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Aspinall, S. T.,
D. R. A. Wareing,
P. G. Hayward, and D. N. Hutchinson.
1996.
A comparison of a new Campylobacter selective medium (CAT) with membrane filtration for the isolation of thermophilic campylobacters including Campylobacter upsaliensis.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
80:645-650[Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Bourke, B.,
V. L. Chan, and P. Sherman.
1998.
Campylobacter upsaliensis: waiting in the wings.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
11:440-449[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Bourke, B., and P. Sherman.
1999.
Gastrointestinal infections in children.
Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol.
15:79-84.
|
| 6.
|
Corry, J. E. L., and H. I. Atabay.
1997.
Comparison of the productivity of cefoperazone amphotericin teicoplanin (CAT) agar and modified charcoal cefoperazone deoxycholate (mCCD) agar for various strains of Campylobacter, Arcobacter and Helicobacter pullorum.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
38:201-209[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Corry, J. E. L.,
G. D. W. Curtis, and R. M. Baird.
1995.
Culture media for food microbiology.
Prog. Ind. Microbiol.
34:473-478.
|
| 8.
|
Goossens, H.,
L. Vlaes,
M. DeBoeck,
B. Pot,
K. Kersters,
J. Levy,
P. De Mol,
J. P. Butzler, and P. VanDamme.
1990.
Is "Campylobacter upsaliensis" an unrecognised cause of human diarrhoea?
Lancet
335:584-586[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Hald, B., and M. Madsen.
1997.
Healthy puppies and kittens as carriers of Campylobacter spp., with special reference to Campylobacter upsaliensis.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
35:3351-3352[Abstract].
|
| 10.
|
Hindiyeh, M.,
S. Jense,
S. Hohmann,
H. Benett,
C. Edwards,
W. Aldeen,
A. Croft,
J. Daly,
S. Mottice, and K. C. Carroll.
2000.
Rapid detection of Campylobacter jejuni in stool specimens by enzyme immunoassay and surveillance for Campylobacter upsaliensis in the greater Salt Lake City area.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
38:3076-3079[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 11.
|
Lawson, A. J.,
D. Linton,
J. Stanley, and R. J. Owen.
1997.
Polymerase chain reaction detection and speciation of Campylobacter upsaliensis and C. helveticus in human faeces and comparison with culture techniques.
J. Appl. Microbiol.
83:375-380[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Lindblom, G. B.,
E. Sjogren,
J. Hansson-Westerberg, and B. Kayser.
1995.
Campylobacter upsaliensis, C. sputorum sputorum and C. concisus as common causes of diarrhoea in Swedish children.
Scand. J. Infect. Dis.
27:187-188[Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Linton, D.,
R. J. Owen, and J. Stanley.
1996.
Rapid identification by PCR of the genus Campylobacter and five Campylobacter species enteropathogenic for man and animals.
Res. Microbiol.
147:707-718[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Metherell, L. A.,
J. M. J. Logan, and J. Stanley.
1999.
PCR-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for detection and identification of Campylobacter species: application to isolates and stool samples.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:433-435[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Mooney, A.,
M. Clyne,
T. Curran,
D. Doherty,
B. Kilmartin, and B. Bourke.
2001.
Campylobacter upsaliensis exerts a cytolethal distending toxin effect on HeLa cells and T lymphocytes.
Microbiology
147:735-743[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Patton, C. M.,
N. Shaffer,
P. Edmonds,
T. J. Barrett,
M. A. Lambert,
C. Baker,
D. M. Perlman, and D. J. Brenner.
1989.
Human disease associated with "Campylobacter upsaliensis" (catalase-negative or weakly positive Campylobacter species) in the United States.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
27:66-73[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Sails, A. D.,
F. J. Bolton,
A. J. Fox,
D. R. A. Wareing, and D. L. A. Greenway.
1998.
A reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of thermophilic Campylobacter spp.
Mol. Cell Probes
12:317-322[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Sandstedt, K., and J. Ursing.
1991.
Description of Campylobacter upsaliensis sp. nov. previously known as the CNW group.
Syst. Appl. Microbiol.
14:39-45.
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2001, p. 2713-2716, Vol. 39, No. 7
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.7.2713-2716.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Byrne, C. M., Clyne, M., Bourke, B.
(2007). Campylobacter jejuni adhere to and invade chicken intestinal epithelial cells in vitro. Microbiology
153: 561-569
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Hald, B., Pedersen, K., Waino, M., Jorgensen, J. C., Madsen, M.
(2004). Longitudinal Study of the Excretion Patterns of Thermophilic Campylobacter spp. in Young Pet Dogs in Denmark. J. Clin. Microbiol.
42: 2003-2012
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lau, S. K. P., Woo, P. C. Y., Hui, W.-t., Li, M. W. S., Teng, J. L. L., Que, T.-L., Luk, W.-K., Lai, R. W. M., Yung, R. W. H., Yuen, K.-y.
(2003). Use of Cefoperazone MacConkey Agar for Selective Isolation of Laribacter hongkongensis. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 4839-4841
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lastovica, A. J., Le Roux, E., Byrne, C., Bourke, B.
(2001). Efficient Isolation of Campylobacter upsaliensis from Stools. J. Clin. Microbiol.
39: 4222-4223
[Full Text]