Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Mycobacteriology and Aerobic Actinomycetes

Routine Use of PCR–Reverse Cross-Blot Hybridization Assay for Rapid Identification ofMycobacterium Species Growing in Liquid Media

M. Sanguinetti, B. Posteraro, F. Ardito, S. Zanetti, A. Cingolani, L. Sechi, A. De Luca, L. Ortona, G. Fadda
M. Sanguinetti
Istituto di Microbiologia and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Posteraro
Istituto di Microbiologia and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Ardito
Istituto di Microbiologia and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Zanetti
Istituto di Microbiologia e Virologia, Universitá degli Studi, Sassari, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Cingolani
Clinica delle Malattie Infettive, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Sechi
Istituto di Microbiologia e Virologia, Universitá degli Studi, Sassari, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. De Luca
Clinica delle Malattie Infettive, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Ortona
Clinica delle Malattie Infettive, Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Fadda
Istituto di Microbiologia and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.6.1530-1533.1998
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization assay procedure that is able to rapidly identify 13 species of clinically relevant mycobacteria was evaluated for routine use in the identification of acid-fast isolates growing in BACTEC 460 TB (12B and 13A) and BACTEC 9000 MB (Myco/F) liquid media. Eight of the probes used were already described by Kox et al. (L. F. F. Kox et al., J. Clin. Microbiol. 33:3225–3233, 1995). In addition, we used six other probes specific for M. chelonae, M. malmoense orM. szulgai, M. genavense,M. gordonae, M. terrae, andM. marinum/M. ulcerans that we designed ourselves. This procedure allowed us to identify 459 mycobacterial species directly from broth cultures of 5,466 clinical samples collected over 1 year and processed with the radiometric or nonradiometric BACTEC system. Our results were in agreement with those obtained by conventional identification methods and also with those obtained by mycolic acid analysis by high-performance liquid chromatography. This assay seems to be a reliable procedure for the routine identification of mycobacteria, providing an accurate identification of mycobacterial isolates more rapidly than conventional tests, with remarkable implications for an efficacious specific antimycobacterial therapy.

During the last 10 years, the number of new cases of infections due to Mycobacterium tuberculosishas increased (25, 32). Factors contributing to the resurgence of tuberculosis include the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic, the immigration of people from countries with a high incidence of tuberculosis, and an increase in the medically underserved population. Moreover, various diseases caused by mycobacteria other than M. tuberculosis such as M. aviumand M. intracellulare are now commonly associated with severe immunosuppression (9, 15, 31). Other opportunistic mycobacterial infections associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection are caused by M. kansasii, M. xenopi, M. fortuitum, M. scrofulaceum, M. malmoense, and M. genavense (9, 14). Consequently, rapid methods for the identification of clinically relevant mycobacterial species are welcome, since the therapeutic treatments for mycobacterial diseases can differ depending on the species responsible for the infection (30).

Current identification of mycobacterial species is based on traditional biochemical tests; these methods are time-consuming, because most of the mycobacterial species need at least 4 weeks of culture on conventional media before sufficient growth and biomass are obtained to permit identification.

An important development for the rapid isolation of mycobacteria from clinical samples was the introduction of liquid medium for primary cultures, which increased the rates of isolation of mycobacteria (19, 33). In addition, methods based on lipid composition analysis by gas-liquid chromatography (28) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (5) and on the use of species-specific DNA or RNA probes (12, 23) have been developed for the identification of mycobacteria to the species level. On the other hand, methods based on gas-liquid chromatography and HPLC require expensive laboratory equipment, and the use of the DNA or RNA probes allows the identification of a limited number of mycobacterial species.

Recently, several molecular biology-based methods have been developed for the accurate and rapid identification of mycobacteria from clinical isolates and/or clinical samples. Most of these tests are based on PCR amplification of sequences specific only for M. tuberculosis (6, 7, 20), while others also use the target the sequences coding for 16S rRNA (1, 16, 29) or hsp65 (10, 27) for the identification of nontuberculous mycobacteria.

In this work we describe the successful routine application of a molecular biology-based method based on PCR amplification of 16S rRNA gene sequences and a subsequent reverse cross-hybridization assay with species-specific probes for the direct identification of mycobacteria grown in primary cultures in liquid medium found to be positive with the BACTEC 460 TB and BACTEC 9000 MB systems. Of the 14 probes used, 8 have already been reported (21), whereas 6 have been originally designed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Reference strains.Reference mycobacterial strains (M. tuberculosis H37 Rv TMC 102, ATCC 27294, Erdman strain TMC 107, and ATCC 35801; M. avium ATCC 25291;M. chelonae ATCC 35752; M. fortuitumATCC 6841; M. intracellulare ATCC 13950; M. kansasii ATCC 12478; M. marinum ATCC 927;M. xenopi ATCC 19250; M. smegmatis ATCC 607; M. terrae ATCC 15755; as well as M. genavense, M. malmoense, and M. gordonae [clinical isolates]) were tested in this study.

Specimens.A total of 5,466 clinical specimens (including sputum, urine, stool, bronchoalveolar lavage, gastric and cerebrospinal fluid, blood, and tissue biopsy specimens) were submitted for cultures for mycobacteria. These specimens were processed and cultured by well-known protocols (8, 17, 33).

Detection of growth.Growth on solid medium was detected by visual observation of colonies, while in radiometric BACTEC medium, growth was detected with the BACTEC 460 TB instrument and a growth index (GI) of 30 or more was considered positive. Growth in BACTEC 9000 MB was detected with the BACTEC 9000 MB instrument, based on the development of fluorescence. All BACTEC-positive cultures were confirmed to be positive by making smears with samples from the broth and staining for acid-fast bacteria; moreover, they were subcultured onto sheep blood agar plates to detect possible contamination with non-acid-fast bacteria. All positive broth cultures found to be smear positive for acid-fast bacilli were processed for DNA extraction.

DNA extraction.Prior to DNA extraction, the acid-fast bacteria present in each positive bottle were inactivated by heating them at 80°C for 30 min. Subsequently, 0.5 ml of each sample was transferred to 1.5-ml screw-cap microcentrifuge tube, the tube was centrifuged at 12,000 × g for 5 min, and the pellet was resuspended in 100 μl of distilled water and subjected to three cycles of boiling and freezing (5 min at 100°C, 5 min at −20°C) (13). Then, an equal volume of chloroform was added and the samples were vortexed and centrifuged at 12,000 × gfor 10 min. The aqueous phase containing the extracted DNA was used for amplification or was transferred to a clean microcentrifuge tube and stored at −20°C until it was used.

Isolation of DNA from the reference strains was performed as described previously (1). The isolated DNA was suspended in TE (0.01 M Tris-HCl, 0002 M EDTA [pH 8]) at 10 ng/μl and stored at 4°C.

PCR.The PCRs were performed in a Gene Amp PCR System 2400 (Perkin-Elmer Cetus, Norwalk, Conn.) under the conditions previously described by Kox et al. (21). Briefly, a total of 20 μl of the DNA-containing supernatant was added to PCR mixture containing 50 mM KCl, 10 mM Tris HCl (pH 8.3), 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.01% (wt/vol) gelatin, deoxynucleoside triphosphates (dATP, dGTP, dCTP, and dUTP) at a concentration of 200 μM (each), primers pMyc14bio and pMyc7 at a concentration of 200 nM (each), and 1 U of TaqDNA polymerase (Boehringer Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany) per 50-μl reaction volume. The presence of amplified DNA was visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis (2% in TAE buffer [Tris acetate, 0.05 M {pH 8}, EDTA 0.01 M] for 1 h and 30 min at 70 V at room temperature) and staining with ethidium bromide.

Reverse cross-blot hybridization assay.The amplicons that were obtained were analyzed as described by Kox et al. (21) by the reverse cross-blot hybridization assay with specific probes. pMyc5a, pTub1, pAvi3, pInt5, pKan1, pXen1, pFor1, and pSme1 were the probes described by Kox et al. (21) and corresponded to 16S rRNA gene sequences specific for Mycobacterium spp.,M. tuberculosis complex, M. avium,M. intracellulare, M. kansasii,M. xenopi, M. fortuitum, andM. smegmatis, respectively. The other probes, specific for M. malmoense or M. szulgai(5′-CCCCAAGGCATGCGCCTCGG-3′), M. genavense(5′-CACCAAAAAACATGCGTTCCG-3′), M. gordonae(5′-CATGTGTTCTGTGGTCCTATTC-3′), M. terrae(5′-ACCACAGAACATGCATCCCA-3′), M. chelonae(5′-CCACTCACCATGAAGTGTGTGGT-3′), and M. marinumor M. ulcerans(5′- ACCACAGGACATGAATCCCGTG-3′), were also designed to hybridize to the 16S rRNA gene region so that their melting temperatures were comparable. The specificities of these sequences were evaluated by comparing them with the 16S rRNA sequences specific for the most important mycobacterial species by using DNASIS for Windows software (Hitachi Software Engineering, San Bruno, Calif.). Moreover, these additional probes are similar but not identical to those described by Kox et al. (22). The oligonucleotide probes were subjected to the tailing reactions with dTTP (21) to permit the efficient capture of the PCR products in the reverse cross-blot hybridization assay. Then, they were blotted on top of a positively charged nylon membrane (Boehringer Mannheim) in the cross-blotter apparatus (Accutran cross; ACC 100/0; Schleicher & Schuell, Dassel, Germany). Two membrane panels were prepared as described above; the first included probes for Mycobacteriumspp. and those specific for M. tuberculosis complex,M. avium, M. intracellulare,M. fortuitum, M. gordonae, andM. xenopi, and the second included probes specific forMycobacterium spp., M. chelonae,M. genavense, M. kansasii,M. malmoense or M. szulgai,M. marinum or M. ulcerans,M. smegmatis, and M. terrae. The PCR products were denatured by heating (100°C for 10 min) and were added, in the cross-blotter apparatus, to the slots of the membrane in hybridization solution (5× SSC [1× SSC is 0.15 M NaCl plus 0.015 M sodium citrate], 1% blocking reagent [Boehringer Mannheim], 0.1%N-lauroylsarcosine, 0.02% sodium dodecyl sulfate [SDS]) at 60°C, and the hybridized PCR products were detected by incubation with streptavidin-alkaline phosphatase and a color substrate, according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Boehringer Mannheim).

Identification by biochemical tests and DNA probes.Aliquots of BACTEC 460 TB and BACTEC 9000 MB liquid cultures containing acid-fast cells were subcultured onto Middlebrook 7H10 agar plates and Löwenstein-Jensen slants. The acid-fast isolates were identified by standard methods for the determination of the species of the mycobacterial isolates (17). In addition, commercial DNA probes were used directly from the BACTEC broth cultures (GI, ≥100) for the rapid identification of M. tuberculosis,M. avium, M. intracellulare, andM. gordonae, according to the manufacturer’s instructions (AccuProbe, Gen-Probe, Inc., San Diego, Calif.).

HPLC.Mycolic acid analysis of mycobacteria was performed with a Hewlett-Packard 1100 HPLC system (Hewlett-Packard, Waldbronn, Germany). The saponification of mycobacterial cells and derivatization of the mycolic acids to p-bromophenacyl esters were performed by the conditions described by other investigators (4). They were separated by using a reverse-phase C18 ultrasphere-XL cartridge column (Beckman Instruments, Inc., Fullerton, Calif.) with a particle size of 3 μm by using the conditions described previously (11).

The mycolic acid patterns resulting from the clinical isolates were identified by the Sherlock system (MIDI, Inc., Newark, Del.).

RESULTS

In order to validate the PCR and reverse cross-blot hybridization assay for identification purposes, 13 mycobacterial species including reference strains and clinical isolates were tested. As Fig.1 shows, the resulting PCR products specifically hybridized only with the genus-specific probe and the corresponding species-specific probe, thus confirming the validity of this method. Similar results were obtained by other investigators (21). The number of probes tested included those forM. chelonae, M. genavense,M. malmoense, M. terrae, M. marinum, and M. gordonae, all species with increasing clinical relevance (2, 3, 9). These probes were specifically designed to increase the number of identifiable mycobacteria.

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Analysis by reverse cross-blot hybridization of PCR products derived from 13 mycobacterial species. Lane 1, M. tuberculosis H37 Rv TMC 102; lane 2, M. avium ATCC 25291; lane 3, M. intracellulare ATCC 13950; lane 4,M. fortuitum ATCC 6841; lane 5, M. gordonae (clinical specimen); lane 6, M. xenopiATCC 19250; lane 7, M. chelonae ATCC 35752; lane 8,M. genavense (clinical specimen); lane 9, M. kansasii ATCC 12478; lane 10, M. malmoense(clinical specimen); lane 11, M. marinum ATCC 927; lane 12, M. smegmatis ATCC 607; lane 13, M. terrae ATCC 15755.

A total of 459 broth cultures detected as positive by the BACTEC 460 TB (GI, ≥30) and BACTEC 9000 MB instruments were microscopy positive for acid-fast bacteria and were subjected to PCR and the reverse cross-blot hybridization assay. All were found to be PCR positive, and their amplicons gave specific hybridization results; thus, the specificity of the assay was estimated to be 100%. We observed that the amount of amplicon obtained from the broth cultures correlated approximately with the BACTEC GI (Fig. 2). However, the different amounts of PCR products did not influence the intensity of the hybridization signal, which was always easily readable.

Fig. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Results of PCR performed with samples from BACTEC cultures with different GI values. MXIII, Marker XIII (Boehringer Mannheim); lane 1, GI of 100; lane 2, GI of 70; lane 3, GI of 50; lane 4, GI of 30; lane 5, GI of 190; lane 6, GI of 320; MVI, Marker VI (Boehringer Mannheim).

Usually, we tested the amplicons with the first panel of probes. Subsequently, the samples found to be positive only with the genus-specific probe were challenged with the second panel of oligonucleotide probes.

The results obtained for the species that we identified were as follows: 172 M. tuberculosis (37.4%), 144M. xenopi (31.4%), 85 M. avium(18.6%), 43 M. gordonae (9.4%), 4 M. fortuitum (0.8%), 3 M. marinum (0.6%), 2M. kansasii (0.4%), and 2 M. chelonae (0.4%) isolates and 1 isolate (0.2%) each ofM. intracellulare, M. malmoense,M. terrae, and M. genavense.

In the meantime, all acid-fast microorganisms derived from the positive BACTEC liquid cultures were subjected to identification by biochemical tests and also with commercial DNA probes. Moreover, all the isolates were submitted to mycolic acid analysis by HPLC. We observed perfect agreement among all techniques used, but the times to detection were different, thus highlighting the validity of the PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization assay.

DISCUSSION

The increasing frequency of isolation of mycobacterial species other than M. tuberculosis as a consequence of the consistent numbers of immunocompromised patients led us to investigate the routine use of a PCR-based molecular biology-based method in order to rapidly identify several mycobacterial species growing in BACTEC 460 TB and BACTEC 9000 MB liquid media.

The BACTEC systems are both efficient for the detection of acid-fast bacteria, allowing the growth of the mycobacteria in a few days. However, the markedly reduced time of the assay (33) should be accomplished by an equally advantageous rapid identification method. At present, the most commonly used identification procedures are based on biochemical characteristics, but not only are they time-consuming but their results are also difficult to interpret, even by experienced personnel. PCR-based methods could overcome these difficulties. For this reason, we chose a method based on the analysis of the PCR products after amplification from the 16S rRNA gene in a reverse cross-blot hybridization assay (21). Technically, this method is simple. A PCR product can be hybridized with different probes simultaneously, and the results obtained are easily readable and not subjected to misinterpretation. Moreover, we enhanced the validity of the method by introducing oligonucleotide probes specific for clinically relevant species (9), such as M. genavense, M. malmoense, and M. marinum. In addition, we evaluated the routine use of this method with broth cultures found to be positive with the BACTEC instruments. The validity of the PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization analyses was confirmed by comparison of the results with those obtained by the usual identification methods, such as biochemical tests, tests with commercial DNA probes, and HPLC analysis. The comparison showed perfect agreement among the different techniques and confirmed the validity of this method. This PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization assay demonstrated several advantages not only with respect to conventional techniques based on the morphologic and biochemical features of mycobacteria but also when compared with HPLC analysis. In fact, the latter method requires expensive laboratory equipment and experienced personnel, factors that limit its application for the routine identification of mycobacterial species. Moreover, the commercially available automated systems for HPLC pattern recognition (e.g., the Sherlock system [MIDI]) are unable to distinguishM. avium from M. intracellulare andM. scrofulaceum or M. xenopi fromM. celatum.

The benefits of the PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization method are also remarkable when the method is compared with other molecular biology-based techniques. Recently, the use of commercial nonradioactive probes (AccuProbe; Gen-Probe) directed against 16S rRNA have contributed to simplification of the procedure and shortening of the time necessary for the identification of slowly growing mycobacteria such as M. avium, M. intracellulare, M. gordonae, and M. tuberculosis (12, 23). Yet, this method is unable to identify other clinically relevant species, such as M. xenopi, a species among the opportunistic mycobacteria that is frequently isolated in Europe and that represents one of the most common agents of pulmonary infection due to nontuberculous mycobacteria (24). We conclude that the limited number of identifiable species makes the commercial DNA probes insufficient for use in the routine identification of all clinical mycobacterial isolates. Moreover, as noted previously (19, 26), they are frequently insensitive for the identification of acid-fast isolates in liquid media due to the inadequate cell mass produced. In our experience, the BACTEC GI needed to perform an analysis with DNA probes was greater than that required by our molecular biology-based method.

The advantages of the PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization method are appreciable compared to those of the other recent and innovative molecular biology-based procedures, such as those that analyze the PCR products by sequencing analysis (16, 18) or restriction enzyme procedures (29). Even though it is effective, the latter method presents some problems with regard to the interpretation of the results. In fact, the method of Telenti et al. (27), which is able to identify the majority of mycobacteria, was proposed for use in the routine identification of clinical mycobacterial isolates (26), but it needed a computer analysis of the restriction patterns to clearly evidence the small differences among the bands. In contrast, the results obtained by our method are easy to read, since after the hybridization between the biotinylated PCR product and the specific oligonucleotide probe, a single colored precipitate on the strip corresponds to a unique species.

In conclusion, our results suggest that PCR–reverse cross-blot hybridization, because of its ability to identify a wide variety of clinically relevant mycobacteria including the potentially pathogenic environmental species, can be adopted by laboratories with PCR facilities for the rapid detection of the acid-fast isolates growing in BACTEC 460 TB and 9000 MB system media.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Tuberculosis Project (Istituto Superiore di Sanitá-Ministero della Sanitá), contract 96/D/T10.

We thank Saveria Pastore for critical reading of the manuscript.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 17 October 1997.
    • Returned for modification 7 January 1998.
    • Accepted 4 March 1998.
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Avaniss-Aghajani E.,
    2. Jones K.,
    3. Holtzman A.,
    4. Aronson T.,
    5. Glover N.,
    6. Boian M.,
    7. Froman S.,
    8. Brunk C. F.
    Molecular technique for rapid identification of mycobacteria.J. Clin. Microbiol. 34 1996 98 102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Berman S. M.,
    2. Kim R. C.,
    3. Haghighat D.,
    4. Mulligan M. E.,
    5. Fierer J.,
    6. Wyle F. C.
    Mycobacterium genavense infection presenting as a solitary brain mass in a patient with AIDS: case report and review.Clin. Infect. Dis. 19 1994 1152 1154
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Böttger E. C.
    Mycobacterium genavense: an emerging pathogen.Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13 1994 932 936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Butler W. R.,
    2. Kilburn J. O.
    Identification of major slowly growing pathogenic mycobacteria and Mycobacterium gordonae by high-performance liquid chromatography of their mycolic acids.J. Clin. Microbiol. 26 1988 50 53
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Butler W. R.,
    2. Jost K. C. Jr.,
    3. Kilburn J. O.
    Identification of mycobacteria by high-performance liquid chromatography.J. Clin. Microbiol. 29 1991 2468 2472
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Clarridge J. E. III,
    2. Shawar R. M.,
    3. Shinnick T. M.,
    4. Plikaytis B. B.
    Large-scale use of polymerase chain reaction for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a routine mycobacteriology laboratory.J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 1993 2049 2056
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Eisenach K. D.,
    2. Sifford M. D.,
    3. Cave M. D.,
    4. Bates J. H.,
    5. Crawford J. T.
    Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum samples using a polymerase chain reaction.Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 144 1991 1160 1163
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Fadda G.,
    2. Roe S. L.
    Recovery and susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from extrapulmonary specimens by the BACTEC radiometric method.J. Clin. Microbiol. 19 1984 720 721
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Falkinam J. O. III.
    Epidemiology of infection by nontuberculous mycobacteria.Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 9 1996 177 215
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Fiss E. H.,
    2. Chehab F. F.,
    3. Brooks G. F.
    DNA amplification and reverse dot blot hybridization for detection and identification of mycobacteria to the species level in the clinical laboratory.J. Clin. Microbiol. 30 1992 1220 1224
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Glickman S. E.,
    2. Kilburn J. O.,
    3. Butler W. R.,
    4. Ramos L. S.
    Rapid identification of mycolic acid patterns of mycobacteria by high-performance liquid chromatography using pattern recognition software and a Mycobacterium library.J. Clin. Microbiol. 32 1994 740 745
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Goto M.,
    2. Oka S.,
    3. Okuzimi K.,
    4. Kimura S.,
    5. Shimada K.
    Evaluation of acridinium-ester-labeled DNA probes for identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium-Mycobacterium intracellulare complex in culture.J. Clin. Microbiol. 29 1991 2473 2476
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Heym B.,
    2. Honore N.,
    3. Truffot-Pernot C.,
    4. Banerjee A.,
    5. Schurra C.,
    6. Jacobs W. R. Jr.,
    7. van Embden J. D. A.,
    8. Grosset J. H.,
    9. Cole S. T.
    Implications of multidrug resistance for the future of short course chemotherapy of tuberculosis: a molecular study.Lancet 344 1994 293 298
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hoffner S. E.
    Pulmonary infections caused by less frequently encountered slow-growing environmental mycobacteria.Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 13 1994 937 941
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Horsburgh C. R. Jr.
    Mycobacterium avium complex infection in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.N. Engl. J. Med. 324 1991 1332 1338
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hughes M. S.,
    2. Skuce R. A.,
    3. Beck L. A.,
    4. Neil S. D.
    Identification of mycobacteria from animals by restriction enzyme analysis and direct DNA cycle sequencing of polymerase chain reaction-amplified 16S rRNA gene sequences.J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 1993 3216 3222
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kent P. T.,
    2. Kubika G. P.
    Public health mycobacteriology. A guide for the level III laboratory. 1985 Centers for Disease Control Atlanta, Ga
  18. 18.↵
    1. Kirschner P.,
    2. Springer B.,
    3. Vogel U.,
    4. Meier A.,
    5. Wrede A.,
    6. Kiekenbeck M.,
    7. Bange F. C.,
    8. Böttger E. C.
    Genotypic identification of mycobacteria by nucleic acid sequence determination: report of a 2-year experience in a clinical laboratory.J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 1993 2882 2889
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Knolte F. S.,
    2. Metchock B.
    Mycobacterium Manual of clinical microbiology 6th ed. Murray P. R., Baron E. J., Pfaller M. A., Tenover F. C., Yolken R. H. 1995 400 437 American Society for Microbiology Washington, D.C
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kox L. F. F.,
    2. Rhienthong D.,
    3. Medo Miranda A.,
    4. Udomsantisuk N.,
    5. Ellis K.,
    6. Van leeuwen J.,
    7. van Heusden S.,
    8. Kuijper S.,
    9. Kolk A. H. J.
    A more reliable PCR for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical samples.J. Clin. Microbiol. 32 1994 672 678
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kox L. F. F.,
    2. van Leeuwen J.,
    3. Knijper S.,
    4. Jansen H. M,
    5. Kolk A. H. J.
    PCR assay based on DNA coding for 16S rRNA for detection and identification of mycobacteria in clinical samples.J. Clin. Microbiol. 33 1995 3225 3233
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kox L. F.,
    2. Jansen H. M.,
    3. Knijper S.,
    4. Kolk A. H.
    Multiplex PCR assay for immediate identification of the infecting species in patients with mycobacterial disease.J. Clin. Microbiol. 35 1997 1492 1498
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lebrun L.,
    2. Espinasse F.,
    3. Poveda J. D.,
    4. Vincent-Levy-Frebault V.
    Evaluation of nonradioactive DNA probes for identification of mycobacteria.J. Clin. Microbiol. 30 1992 2476 2478
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Picardeau M.,
    2. Vincent V.
    Development of a species-specific probe for Mycobacterium xenopi.Res. Microbiol. 146 1995 237 243
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Raviglione M. C.,
    2. Snider D. E. Jr.,
    3. Kochi A.
    Global epidemiology of tuberculosis. Morbidity and mortality of a worldwide epidemic.JAMA 273 1995 220 226
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Taylor T. B.,
    2. Patterson C.,
    3. Hale Y.,
    4. Safranek W. W.
    Routine use of PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis for identification of mycobacteria growing in liquid media.J. Clin. Microbiol. 35 1997 79 85
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Telenti A.,
    2. Marches F.,
    3. Bald M.,
    4. Badly F.,
    5. Böttger E.,
    6. Bodmer T.
    Rapid identification of mycobacteria to the species level by polymerase chain reaction and restriction enzyme analysis.J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 1993 175 178
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Tisdall P. A.,
    2. Roberts G. D.,
    3. Anhalt J. P.
    Identification of clinical isolates of mycobacteria with gas-liquid chromatography alone.J. Clin. Microbiol. 10 1979 506 514
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Vaneechoutte M.,
    2. de Beenhouwer H.,
    3. Clayes G.,
    4. Verschraegen G.,
    5. De Rouck A.,
    6. Paepe N.,
    7. Elaichouni A.,
    8. Portaels F.
    Identification of Mycobacterium species by using amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis.J. Clin. Microbiol. 31 1993 2061 2065
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Wallace R. J. Jr.,
    2. O’Brien R.,
    3. Glassroth J.,
    4. Raleigh J.,
    5. Dutt A.
    Diagnosis and treatment of disease caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria.Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 142 1990 940 953
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Wolinsky E.
    Mycobacterial diseases other than tuberculosis.Clin. Infect. Dis. 15 1992 1 12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    World Health Organization Global program on AIDS. The HIV/AIDS pandemic: 1993 overview. WHO/EPA/CNP/EVA/93.1. 1993 World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland
  33. 33.↵
    1. Zanetti S.,
    2. Ardito F.,
    3. Sechi L.,
    4. Sanguinetti M.,
    5. Molicotti P.,
    6. Delogu G.,
    7. Pinna M. P.,
    8. Nacci A.,
    9. Fadda G.
    Evaluation of nonradiometric system (Bactec 9000 MB) for detection of mycobacteria in human clinical samples.J. Clin. Microbiol. 35 1997 2072 2075
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Routine Use of PCR–Reverse Cross-Blot Hybridization Assay for Rapid Identification ofMycobacterium Species Growing in Liquid Media
M. Sanguinetti, B. Posteraro, F. Ardito, S. Zanetti, A. Cingolani, L. Sechi, A. De Luca, L. Ortona, G. Fadda
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 1998, 36 (6) 1530-1533; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.6.1530-1533.1998

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Routine Use of PCR–Reverse Cross-Blot Hybridization Assay for Rapid Identification ofMycobacterium Species Growing in Liquid Media
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Routine Use of PCR–Reverse Cross-Blot Hybridization Assay for Rapid Identification ofMycobacterium Species Growing in Liquid Media
M. Sanguinetti, B. Posteraro, F. Ardito, S. Zanetti, A. Cingolani, L. Sechi, A. De Luca, L. Ortona, G. Fadda
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 1998, 36 (6) 1530-1533; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.6.1530-1533.1998
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

mycobacterium
nontuberculous mycobacteria
polymerase chain reaction

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X