This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cavallaro, J. J. Articles by Miller, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cavallaro, J. J. Articles by Miller, J. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 12 1997, 3186-3191, Vol 35, No. 12
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of the BBL crystal anaerobe identification system [In Process Citation]

JJ Cavallaro, LS Wiggs and JM Miller
Diagnostic Microbiology Section, Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA. JJC1@CDC.GOV

The BBL Crystal Anaerobe (ANR) identification system was evaluated, and the results were compared with those from conventional anaerobic methods. We tested 322 clinically significant anaerobic bacteria according to the manufacturer's instructions. The system identified correctly 286 of 322 (88.8%) of the anaerobic bacteria tested. Of these, 263 of 322 (81.7%) were identified correctly on initial testing and 49 were identified correctly only to the genus level; on repeat testing, 23 of 49 (46.9%) were identified correctly to both the genus and the species levels. A total of 26 (8.5%) were misidentified at the species level, and 10 (3.1%) were not identified. Performance characteristics for individual strains varied. The system correctly identified all tested strains of Campylobacter, Desulfomonas, Desulfovibrio, Leptotrichia, Mobiluncus, Peptostreptococcus, Porphyromonas, Provetella, Propionibacterium, Tisierella, and Veillonella and 36 of 37 (97.3%) Actinomyces strains, 42 of 46 (91.3%) B. fragilis group strains, 79 of 103 (76.7%) Clostridium strains, (however, the system failed to identify any of the 7 C. innocuum and 9 C. tetani strains tested), and 8 of 15 (53.3%) Bacteroides strains. This system was easy to use, did not involve the addition of reagents, and was faster than conventional anaerobic procedures. It would be a useful addition to the anaerobe laboratory of most hospitals.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Mory, F., Alauzet, C., Matuszeswski, C., Riegel, P., Lozniewski, A. (2009). Evaluation of the New Vitek 2 ANC Card for Identification of Medically Relevant Anaerobic Bacteria. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 1923-1926 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Warren, Y. A., Citron, D. M., Merriam, C. V., Goldstein, E. J. C. (2005). Biochemical Differentiation and Comparison of Desulfovibrio Species and Other Phenotypically Similar Genera. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 4041-4045 [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]  
• Teng, L.-J., Hsueh, P.-R., Tsai, J.-C., Chiang, F.-L., Chen, C.-Y., Ho, S.-W., Luh, K.-T. (2000). PCR Assay for Species-Specific Identification of Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38: 1672-1675 [Abstract] [Full Text]