This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Wiggs, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wiggs, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2000, p. 499-507, Vol. 38, No. 2
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0

Evaluation of the Oxyrase OxyPlate Anaerobe Incubation System

Lois S. Wiggs, Joseph J. Cavallaro,* and J. Michael Miller

Diagnostic Microbiology Section, Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Received 9 August 1999/Returned for modification 27 September 1999/Accepted 8 November 1999

The Oxyrase OxyPlate anaerobe incubation system was evaluated for its ability to support the growth of clinically significant anaerobic bacteria previously identified by the Anaerobe Reference Laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The results were compared with those obtained with conventional anaerobe blood agar plates incubated in an anaerobe chamber. We tested 251 anaerobic bacterial strains. Plates were read at 24, 48, and 72 h; growth was scored by a numerical coding system that combines the degree of growth and the colony size. Organisms (number of strains tested) used in this study were Actinomyces (32), Anaerobiospirillum (8), Bacteroides (39), Campylobacter (8), Clostridium (96), Fusobacterium (12), Leptotrichia (8), Mobiluncus (8), Peptostreptococcus (16), and Propionibacterium (24). At 24 h, 101 (40.2%) of the 251 strains tested showed better growth with the anaerobe chamber than with the OxyPlate system, 10 (4.1%) showed better growth with the OxyPlate system, and the remaining 140 (55.8%) showed equal growth with both systems. At 48 h, 173 (68.9%) showed equal growth with both systems, while 78 (31.1%) showed better growth with the anaerobe chamber. At 72 h, 176 (70.1%) showed equal growth with both systems, while 75 (29.9%) showed better growth with the anaerobe chamber. The OxyPlate system performed well for the most commonly isolated anaerobes but was inadequate for some strains. These results indicate that the Oxyrase OxyPlate system was effective in creating an anaerobic atmosphere and supporting the growth of anaerobic bacteria within 72 h. OxyPlates would be a useful addition to the clinical microbiology laboratory lacking resources for traditional anaerobic culturing techniques.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., N.E., Mail Stop C-16, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: (404) 639-3156. Fax: (404) 639-3241. E-mail: JJC1{at}CDC.GOV.


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, February 2000, p. 499-507, Vol. 38, No. 2
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0