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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moyaert, H.
Right arrow Articles by Baele, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moyaert, H.
Right arrow Articles by Baele, M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2008, p. 1867-1869, Vol. 46, No. 5
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00139-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of 16S rRNA Gene-Based PCR Assays for Genus-Level Identification of Helicobacter Species{triangledown}

H. Moyaert,* F. Pasmans, R. Ducatelle, F. Haesebrouck, and M. Baele

Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium

Received 24 January 2008/ Accepted 1 March 2008


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
The inclusivity, exclusivity, and detection limit of six 16S rRNA gene-based Helicobacter genus-specific PCR assays were examined. Five out of six assays were 100% inclusive, but the tests varied considerably in their exclusivity (9.1 to 95.5%). The clinical detection limit varied between 103 and 1 viable bacterial cell per reaction mixture.


arrow
TEXT
 
Currently, at least 9 gastric and 21 enterohepatic formally named Helicobacter species have been identified in a large variety of animal species and in humans (http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/h/helicobacter.html). Infections with these bacteria may interfere with results obtained from experimental research in animals and, thus, may lead to the misinterpretation of the data (8, 12). Therefore, infected animals must be identified. Until now, several Helicobacter genus-specific PCR assays for use in large-scale screening programs have been described (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9). The inclusivity and exclusivity of some of these assays has been examined before (3, 5, 8), but the basis of these evaluations differed considerably, particularly with respect to the numbers and choices of strains used to evaluate the tests. This makes an objective comparison of their efficacy very difficult. In this study, purified DNA of a collection of 43 type and reference strains belonging to different Helicobacter (n = 21), Campylobacter (n = 15), Arcobacter (n = 6), and Wolinella (n = 1) species was used to evaluate the inclusivity, exclusivity, and detection limit of six previously described Helicobacter genus-specific PCR assays (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9), all targeting the 16S rRNA gene.

All PCR assays were performed in 25-µl volumes containing 2.5 µl 10x PCR buffer (Invitrogen Life Technologies, Merelbeke, Belgium), 0.25 µl of each primer (Operon, Cologne, Germany), 5 µl of deoxynucleoside triphosphate mix (final concentration, 200 µM; Invitrogen Life Technologies), and 1 µl of DNA template (concentrations ranged between 3 and 200 ng DNA/µl, depending on the species). Volumes of Taq polymerase Platinum (Invitrogen Life Technologies), MgCl2 (Invitrogen Life Technologies), and DNA-free purified water were used as appropriate for each assay (Table 1). Reaction mixtures were heated for 5 min at 94°C as an initial denatur-ation step. PCR cycling conditions were as described in the original studies (1, 3, 4, 5, 9), with amendments from the study of Riley et al. (8), in which 35 cycles of 30 s of denaturation at 94°C, 60 s of annealing at 53°C, and 90 s of elongation at 72°C were used. All assays were terminated with a 5-min extension period of 72°C and were performed with Mastercycler ep thermocyclers (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany). Amplicons were detected by the ethidium bromide staining of electrophoresed samples as described previously (2). All PCR assays were performed in triplicate on three separate occasions. If a positive result was obtained with a species not belonging to the genus Helicobacter in all six assays, the obtained amplicons were purified with a QIAquick PCR purification kit (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands) and sequenced as described before (6) using the appropriate primers (Table 1) to exclude the contamination of the DNA with Helicobacter DNA.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Helicobacter genus-specific PCR primers and assay specifications

A detailed overview of the inclusivity (the percentage of Helicobacter strains correctly identified), exclusivity (100 minus the percentage of strains of the nontarget species giving an amplicon of the correct size), and detection limits of all assays is given in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Inclusivity, exclusivity, and detection limit of each Helicobacter-genus PCR assaya

Overall, the inclusivity was high for all assays. This may be explained in part by the use of purified DNA extracts as the template. In a study by On and Jordan (7), the use of heated cell lysates was compared to the use of purified DNA, and it was found that the use of cell lysate templates negatively affected the sensitivity of the assays.

All assays performed suboptimally on exclusivity, which ranged between 9.1 and 95.5%. Where applicable, our reexamination of the exclusivity mostly concurred with results obtained by the original authors (3, 5, 9), but usually only very few Campylobacter, Arcobacter, and/or Wolinella strains were included in the original surveys. In general, the investigators chose to include DNA extracts from other bacteria commonly found in the gastric and/or intestinal flora to evaluate the specificity of their assays. Frequently tested organisms were Escherichia coli, Proteus spp., Bacteroides spp., Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus spp. Our results emphasize that more problems are encountered with the accurate discrimination of closely related taxa. Therefore, it is important to use a strain collection that adequately reflects the taxonomy of the target species to validate a novel PCR assay.

In all six assays, an amplicon of the correct size was obtained with Wolinella succinogenes DNA. The sequencing of these PCR products yielded fragments that all showed 99 to 100% similarity to the 16S rRNA gene of W. succinogenes ATCC 29543T. Therefore, the accidental contamination of the Wolinella DNA with Helicobacter DNA leading to false-positive results could be excluded. Phylogenetically, W. succinogenes is very closely related to the genus Helicobacter (11). In view of this, the observed cross-reaction between primers designed to be specific for Helicobacter and Wolinella DNA is not so surprising.

To determine the analytical detection limit of each PCR assay, 10-fold serial dilutions of the genomic DNA of H. pylori ATCC 26695T (starting from 200 ng DNA/µl) were used as a template in the respective PCR assays, and amplicons were visualized as described above. Additionally, the clinical detection limit of each assay was determined by spiking fecal horse samples, previously tested negative for Helicobacter-related DNA, with decreasing quantities of Helicobacter equorum as previously described (10).

The analytical detection limit was sufficient for all assays and varied between 200 and 20 fg DNA per reaction mixture, which corresponds to approximately 40 and 4 bacterial cells per reaction mixture, respectively (5). For all but one (5) assay, the clinical detection limit coincided with these results (Table 2), thereby demonstrating a good elimination of fecal PCR inhibitors and a good recovery of the target DNA.

It is known that PCR assays that function very specifically by using defined DNA samples as the template may not work properly when more complex samples are studied (3). Therefore, the most accurate assay (1) was tested on an additional 50 DNA extracts from feces of horses infected with H. equorum (6). Helicobacter DNA from each sample was detected with this test. Nonspecific PCR products were obtained from 19 samples (39%), but these fragments of unexpected sizes usually were very weak and therefore did not interfere with the interpretation of the gels.

In the present study, it was demonstrated that the PCR assay described by Al-Soud et al. (1) is especially highly reliable for the genus-level identification of Helicobacter species. This assay is 100% inclusive and 95.5% exclusive, and it can detect as few as 10 bacterial cells per reaction mixture. Moreover, it appeared to be applicable on DNA extracts from fecal samples. Therefore, we recommend using this test for screening fecal samples for the presence of Helicobacter spp.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium, code GOA 12050602.

We are grateful to Ellen Dewaele, Marleen Foubert, Sofie De Bruyckere, and Jurgen De Craene for their technical assistance.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Avian Diseases, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. Phone: 32-9-2647434. Fax: 32-9-2647494. E-mail: Hilde.Moyaert{at}UGent.be Back

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 12 March 2008. Back


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Al-Soud, W. A., M. Bennedsen, S. L. W. On, I.-S. Ouis, P. Vandamme, H.-O. Nilsson, A. Ljungh, and T. Wadström. 2003. Assessment of PCR-DGGE for the identification of diverse Helicobacter species, and application to faecal samples from zoo animals to determine Helicobacter prevalence. J. Med. Microbiol. 52:765-771.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    2. 2
  2. Baele, M., K. Van den Bulck, A. Decostere, P. Vandamme, M.-L. Hänninen, R. Ducatelle, and F. Haesebrouck. 2004. Multiplex PCR assay for differentiation of Helicobacter felis, H. bizzozeronii, and H. salomonis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:1115-1122.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. 3
  3. Bohr, U. R. M., A. Primus, A. Zagoura, B. Glasbrenner, T. Wex, and P. Malfertheiner. 2002. A group-specific PCR assay for the detection of Helicobacteriaceae in human gut. Helicobacter 7:378-383.[CrossRef][Medline]
    4. 4
  4. Choi, Y. K., J. H. Han, and H. S. Joo. 2001. Identification of novel Helicobacter species in pig stomachs by PCR and partial sequencing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:3311-3315.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    5. 5
  5. Germani, Y., C. Dauga, P. Duval, M. Huerre, M. Levy, G. Pialoux, P. Sansonetti, and P. A. D. Grimont. 1997. Strategy for the detection of Helicobacter species by amplification of 16S rRNA genes and identification of H. felis in a human gastric biopsy. Res. Microbiol. 148:315-326.[Medline]
    6. 6
  6. Moyaert, H., F. Haesebrouck, M. Baele, T. Picavet, R. Ducatelle, K. Chiers, L. Ceelen, and A. Decostere. 2007. Prevalence of Helicobacter equorum in faecal samples of horses and humans. Vet. Microbiol. 121:378-383.[CrossRef][Medline]
    7. 7
  7. On, S. L. W., and P. J. Jordan. 2003. Evaluation of 11 PCR assays for species-level identification of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:330-336.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    8. 8
  8. Riley, L. K., C. L. Franklin, R. R. Hook, and C. Besch-Williford. 1996. Identification of murine helicobacters by PCR and restriction enzyme analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34:942-946.[Abstract]
    9. 9
  9. Shen, Z., Y. Feng, and J. G. Fox. 2000. Identification of enterohepatic Helicobacter species by restriction fragment-length polymorphism analysis of the 16S rRNA gene. Helicobacter 5:121-128.[CrossRef][Medline]
    10. 10
  10. Stabel, J. R., and J. P. Bannantine. 2005. Development of a nested PCR method targeting a unique multicopy element, ISMap02, for detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in fecal samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:4744-4750.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    11. 11
  11. Vandamme, P., E. Falsen, R. Rossau, B. Hoste, P. Segers, R. Tytgat, and J. De Ley. 1991. Revision of Campylobacter, Helicobacter, and Wolinella taxonomy: emendation of generic descriptions and proposal of Arcobacter gen. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 41:88-103.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    12. 12
  12. Whary, M. T., and J. G. Fox. 2004. Natural and experimental Helicobacter infections. Comp. Med. 54:128-158.[Medline]

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2008, p. 1867-1869, Vol. 46, No. 5
0095-1137/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.00139-08
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.




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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moyaert, H.
Right arrow Articles by Baele, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moyaert, H.
Right arrow Articles by Baele, M.

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