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
Bacteriology

Inhibition of PCR in Genital and Urine Specimens Submitted for Chlamydia trachomatis Testing

B. Toye, W. Woods, M. Bobrowska, K. Ramotar
B. Toye
Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and
Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Woods
Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Bobrowska
Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. Ramotar
Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.8.2356-2358.1998
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

We determined the frequency of PCR inhibition in genital and urine specimens submitted for Chlamydia trachomatis testing using the internal control DNA provided with the COBAS AMPLICOR C. trachomatis test and assessed methods to remove it. Inhibition occurred in 65 of 906 (7%) cervical swabs, 23 of 51 (45%) urethral swabs, and 2 of 175 (1.1%) urine samples. Overall, inhibition was eliminated in processed specimens after storage at 4°C in 77 of 90 specimens (86%), freezing at −70°C in 59 of 82 specimens (72%), storage at 4°C followed by either 1:100 dilution in 37 of 43 specimens (86%) or 1:10 dilution in 42 of 47 specimens (89%), and phenol-chloroform extraction in 79 of 80 specimens (99%). No positive specimens were missed due to inhibition. We conclude that PCR inhibition is rare with urine specimens and infrequent with endocervical swabs but occurs frequently with urethral swabs. The frequency of PCR inhibition may be significantly reduced by methods which can be easily incorporated into the processing of specimens.

The use of nucleic acid amplification methods such as PCR has significantly improved our ability to diagnose genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections (3). These methods also allow for the use of noninvasive urine specimens for testing which are more acceptable to patients (3, 5, 10, 11, 15). The introduction of commercially available automated DNA amplification assays has allowed more laboratories to introduce these technologies for routine testing of specimens. However, there is some concern that certain substances in clinical specimens may inhibit these assays. In most studies, the frequency of inhibition has been determined by analyzing specimens which were negative by PCR but positive by one of the other methods being used in the comparison, such as culture (1, 2, 9, 10). Few studies have attempted to determine the inhibition rate for all specimens being tested (4, 14, 16). However, various methods of specimen pretreatment have been used in an attempt to neutralize inhibitors in the specimen with variable success (1, 2, 8-11, 16, 17).

The COBAS AMPLICOR C. trachomatis test (Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Branchburg, N.J.) is a commercially available automated assay. Internal control (IC) DNA is provided and is added to the PCR Master Mix. This IC DNA contains primer-binding regions identical to those of the C. trachomatis target sequence but has unique internal-detection probe-binding regions. This allows simultaneous amplification of both C. trachomatis target DNA, when it is present in the clinical specimen, and IC target DNA, followed by selective detection of either amplicon. The failure to detect the IC target DNA after amplification indicates that inhibition of PCR has occurred (14). The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency of PCR inhibition in genital and urine specimens and to compare the effectiveness of various methods in removing inhibition.

Cervical swabs were obtained from women and urethral swabs from men receiving care at the Ottawa General Hospital. First-catch urine specimens (FCU) were obtained from asymptomatic street youth as part of an outreach study. Specimens were transported to the clinical microbiology laboratory at ambient temperature. FCU specimens were stored at 4°C, and the transport media (STM) from the swab specimens were kept at room temperature until testing. All specimens were processed and tested within 4 days of specimen collection as recommended by the manufacturer.

Specimens were batched and processed two to three times weekly by using the COBAS AMPLICOR C. trachomatis test reagents according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Testing was performed with the COBAS AMPLICOR instrument on the same day on which specimen processing occurred. The presence of visible blood in the swab specimens was noted and recorded. Amplification followed by detection of both C. trachomatis and IC DNA was carried out on all specimens. The failure to detect the IC target DNA in C. trachomatis-negative specimens after amplification indicated that PCR inhibition had occurred (14).

For these inhibited specimens, the processed specimen was divided into 3 aliquots and treated as described below prior to retesting. One aliquot was stored at 4°C, another was stored at −70°C, and the third was phenol-chloroform extracted and ethanol precipitated. The aliquot stored at 4°C was retested undiluted and after dilution with specimen diluent. A 1:100 dilution was used for the first half of the study and a 1:10 dilution for the second half. IC DNA was added for all retesting as described above. As retesting of specimens demonstrating PCR inhibition were batched, the numbers of days during which the processed specimens were stored at 4°C prior to retesting varied from 1 to 7 days. For the last 2 months of the study, specimens demonstrating PCR inhibition were not subjected to phenol-chloroform extraction or freezing at −70°C. Groups were compared by χ2 analysis with Yates’ correction or by Fisher’s exact test, with a P value of ≤0.05 being considered statistically significant.

C. trachomatis PCR was positive in 17 of 906 (1.9%) cervical swabs, 4 of 51 (7.8%) urethral swabs, 8 of 101 (8%) male FCU, and 4 of 74 (5.4%) female FCU. Inhibition of PCR was present in 65 of 906 (7.2%) cervical swabs, 23 of 51 (45.1%) urethral swabs, 2 of 74 (2.7%) female FCU, and none of the male FCU. Although not statistically significant, the inhibition rate for visibly bloody cervical specimens was higher than that for nonbloody specimens (3 of 20 [15%] versus 62 of 886 [7%]; P = 0.18). Cervical specimens received with the swab left in the STM had a significantly higher rate of PCR inhibition than specimens without the swab (5 of 27 [18.5%] versus 60 of 879 [6.8%]; P= 0.03). None of the urethral specimens was received with the swab left in the STM. The elapsed time interval (range, 0 to 4 days) from when specimens were received in the laboratory to initial processing and testing did not affect the inhibition rate (data not shown).

The ability of each treatment method to eliminate inhibition in the swab specimens is summarized in Table 1. Overall, phenol-chloroform extraction was the most-effective method in eliminating PCR inhibition, whereas freezing at −70°C was the least effective, especially for urethral swabs. Storage at 4°C and retesting without dilution were as effective as storage at 4°C with dilution (at both 1:10 and 1:100); these methods eliminated PCR inhibition in 80 to 93% of specimens. PCR inhibition in the two female FCU specimens was eliminated with phenol-chloroform extraction, storage at 4°C, and freezing at −70°C. Dilution to 1:100 eliminated inhibition in only one of the two FCU specimens. None of the specimens (swabs or urine) initially demonstrating PCR inhibition were positive for C. trachomatis upon retesting after any of the treatment methods.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Ability of treatment methods in eliminating PCR inhibition

The length of time during which processed specimens were stored at 4°C before retesting (with or without dilution) did not appear to affect the ability of these treatment methods in eliminating PCR inhibition. PCR inhibition was removed in 37 of 45 (82%) genital specimens which were retested undiluted after being stored for ≤3 days at 4°C compared to 38 of 43 (88%) genital specimens stored for >3 days (P = 0.61). Similar results were seen when the specimen was diluted either 1:10 or 1:100 (40 of 45 [89%] versus 38 of 43 [88%]; P = 0.8). However, there were only 15 specimens that were stored for ≤2 days at 4°C.

C. trachomatis PCR results were positive for 33 specimens, of which 28 were available for further analysis. These were all diluted 1:100 with specimen diluent and were retested for C. trachomatis DNA by PCR to determine the effect of dilution. All 18 genital swab specimens, 3 of 6 male FCU, and 3 of 4 female FCU were PCR positive for C. trachomatis DNA after 1:100 dilution. One of the 3 male FCU which tested negative when diluted 1:100 was positive when tested after 1:10 dilution. There were insufficient samples of the other 3 FCU specimens (2 male FCU and 1 female FCU) which tested negative at 1:100 for retesting after a 1:10 dilution.

In our low-prevalence patient population, we found PCR inhibition rates of 7% for cervical swabs and 45% for urethral swabs. These rates of PCR inhibition strongly support the need to amplify and detect the IC DNA provided with the Roche PCR assay on all genital swab specimens. There may be regional differences in rates of PCR inhibition (1, 14, 16), and further studies with other patient populations in other geographic areas are needed. Few studies have investigated the inhibition in urethral swabs, and our rate of 45% is alarmingly high. The reason for the higher inhibition rate of urethral swabs compared to that of cervical swabs is unclear. Further studies with a larger number of urethral specimens are necessary to confirm these results.

Compared to swab specimens, PCR inhibition was detected in only 2.7% of female FCU and none of the male FCU. These results are consistent with other studies that have found a low rate of PCR inhibition in urine specimens (4, 6, 12). This is yet another reason why FCU are the preferred specimen type for PCR testing for diagnosis of chlamydial infection in asymptomatic men (15). Inhibition may be lower with FCU than that with genital swabs because of the dilution of inhibitory factors in a urine specimen or the fact that these specimens are stored at 4°C prior to processing.

Although heme may be inhibitory to PCR, we did not find that blood in specimens resulted in significantly higher PCR inhibition, in agreement with other studies (8, 16). In contrast, leaving the swab in STM results in a significantly higher PCR inhibition rate. It appears that prolonged exposure of the swab to STM results in PCR inhibition, although the exact mechanism by which this occurs has not been elucidated (1). The manufacturer recommends that swabs be removed and discarded after inoculation of the STM. Unfortunately, physicians may not always comply with this, since they are more accustomed to leave a swab in a transport tube than to discard it.

Phenol-chloroform extraction, storage at 4°C, and dilution of the processed specimen after storage were all effective in eliminating PCR inhibition from the majority of specimens. There was no significant difference between diluting the specimen 1:10 or 1:100 in eliminating inhibition. Verkooyen et al. reported that pretreatment at 4°C was ineffective in eliminating PCR inhibition (16). However, they pretreated the specimen at this temperature for only 10 min, in contrast to storing the specimen for ≥1 day at 4°C, as was done in our study. Storage of the specimen at −70°C was the least-effective method, especially for urethral specimens. Reports of positive specimens testing negative after freeze-thawing should also discourage use of this approach to eliminate PCR inhibition (16).

It has been observed in several studies that specimens that were initially falsely negative for C. trachomatis DNA became positive after storage and repeat testing (1, 2, 8, 9). Thus, substances that inhibit PCR may be temperature sensitive or become inactive over time, since storage of specimens at low temperatures or even heating to 95°C has allowed for resolution of inhibition (2, 8, 9, 10, 16).

The major potential disadvantage of using dilution to eliminate PCR inhibition is that this may result in missing a C. trachomatis-positive specimen containing low numbers of target DNA copies, especially with urine specimens. Diluting the specimen 1:10 is as effective in eliminating inhibition and is probably preferred to a 1:100 dilution. However, even at this dilution, a positive specimen may become negative, as has been previously reported (16).

Storage at 4°C and 1:10 dilution of the processed specimen are methods that can be easily incorporated into a clinical laboratory for the treatment of specimens that demonstrate PCR inhibition. Storage at 4°C may be preferred to dilution, since this involves less manipulation of the specimen and would not reduce the sensitivity of the assay, especially with urine specimens. Perhaps incorporating one of these methods into the processing of all swab specimens routinely before initial testing will reduce the inhibition rate. Our preliminary studies with processing cervical swab specimens and storing them at 4°C overnight before testing on the next day have found a PCR inhibition rate of <3%. However, the optimal duration of storage of the processed specimen at 4°C prior to testing remains to be determined. Other alternatives that have been reported to yield a lower rate of PCR inhibition by the Roche assay include the use of 2-SP culture transport medium or the use of a dry swab specimen (7, 15, 16).

In summary, PCR inhibition is rare with FCU and infrequent with endocervical swabs but occurs frequently with urethral swabs. The routine detection of the IC DNA provided by the Roche assay is recommended, especially for genital swab specimens.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank A. Kubacki for excellent technical assistance, T. Darragh and N. E. MacDonald for sending us urine specimens, and F. Huot for excellent secretarial support.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 1 December 1997.
    • Returned for modification 16 March 1998.
    • Accepted 28 April 1998.
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bass C. A.,
    2. Jungkind D. L.,
    3. Silverman N. S.,
    4. Bondi J. M.
    Clinical evaluation of a new polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in endocervical specimens.J. Clin. Microbiol.31199326482653
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bauwens J. E.,
    2. Clark A. M.,
    3. Stamm W. E.
    Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections by a commercial polymerase chain reaction assay.J. Clin. Microbiol.31199330233027
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Black C. M.
    Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections.Clin. Microbiol. Rev.101997160184
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Chan E. L.,
    2. Brandt K.,
    3. Antonishyn N.,
    4. Horsman G. B.
    No inhibitory effect of male urine on Roche Amplicor for Chlamydia detection, abstr. C-391 Abstracts of the 97th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. 1997 188 American Society for Microbiology Washington, D.C
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chernesky M. A.,
    2. Chong S.,
    3. Jang D.,
    4. Luinstra K.,
    5. Sellors J.,
    6. Mahony J.
    Ability of commercial ligase chain reaction and PCR assays to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis infections in men by testing first-void urine.J. Clin. Microbiol.351997982984
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Goessens W. H. F.,
    2. Mouton J. W.,
    3. van der Meijden W. I.,
    4. Deelen S.,
    5. van Rijsoort-Vos T. H.,
    6. Lemmens-den Toom N. I.,
    7. Verbrugh H. A.,
    8. Verkooyen R. P.
    Comparison of three commercially available amplification assays, AMP CT, LCx, and COBAS AMPLICOR, for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in first-void urine.J. Clin. Microbiol.35199726282633
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kellogg J. A.,
    2. Seiple J. W.,
    3. Klinedinst J. L.,
    4. Stroll E. S.,
    5. Cavanaugh S. H.
    Improved PCR detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by using an altered method of specimen transport and high-quality endocervical specimens.J. Clin. Microbiol.33199527652767
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Loeffelholz M. J.,
    2. Lewinski C. A.,
    3. Silver S. R.,
    4. Purohit A. P.,
    5. Herman S. A.,
    6. Buonagurio D. A.,
    7. Dragon E. A.
    Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in endocervical specimens by polymerase chain reaction.J. Clin. Microbiol.30199228472851
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Mahony J. B.,
    2. Luinstra K. E.,
    3. Sellors J. W.,
    4. Pickard L.,
    5. Chong S.,
    6. Jang D.,
    7. Chernesky M. A.
    Role of confirmatory PCRs in determining performance of Chlamydia Amplicor PCR with endocervical specimens from women with a low prevalence of infection.J. Clin. Microbiol.32199424902493
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Pasternack R.,
    2. Vuorinen P.,
    3. Kuukankorpi A.,
    4. Pitkäjärvi T.,
    5. Miettinen A.
    Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women by Amplicor PCR: comparison of diagnostic performance with urine and cervical specimens.J. Clin. Microbiol.341996995998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Pasternack R.,
    2. Vuorinen P.,
    3. Miettinen A.
    Evaluation of the Gen-probe Chlamydia trachomatis transcription-mediated amplification assay with urine specimens from women.J. Clin. Microbiol.351997676678
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Pasternack R.,
    2. Vuorinen P.,
    3. Pitkäjärvi T.,
    4. Koskela M.,
    5. Miettinen A.
    Comparison of manual Amplicor PCR, Cobas Amplicor PCR, and LCx assays for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women by using urine specimens.J. Clin. Microbiol.351997402405
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.
    1. Peeling R. W.,
    2. Brunham R. C.
    Chlamydiae as pathogens: new species and new issues.Emerg. Infect. Dis.21996307319
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rosenstraus M.,
    2. Wang Z.,
    3. Chang S.-Y.,
    4. Debonville D.,
    5. Spadoro J. P.
    An internal control for routine diagnostic PCR: design properties and effect on clinical performance.J. Clin. Microbiol.361998191197
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Toye B.,
    2. Peeling R. W.,
    3. Jessamine P.,
    4. Claman P.,
    5. Gemmill I.
    Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in asymptomatic men and women by PCR assay.J. Clin. Microbiol.34199613961400
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Verkooyen R. P.,
    2. Luijendijk A.,
    3. Huisman W. M.,
    4. Goessens W. H. F.,
    5. Kluytmans J. A. J. W.,
    6. Van Rijsoort-Vos J. H.,
    7. Verbrugh H. A.
    Detection of PCR inhibitors in cervical specimens by using the Amplicor Chlamydia trachomatis assay.J. Clin. Microbiol.34199630723074
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Wiedbrauk D. L.,
    2. Werner J. C.,
    3. Drevon A. M.
    Inhibition of PCR by aqueous and vitreous fluids.J. Clin. Microbiol.33199526432646
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Inhibition of PCR in Genital and Urine Specimens Submitted for Chlamydia trachomatis Testing
B. Toye, W. Woods, M. Bobrowska, K. Ramotar
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Aug 1998, 36 (8) 2356-2358; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.8.2356-2358.1998

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.
Inhibition of PCR in Genital and Urine Specimens Submitted for Chlamydia trachomatis Testing
(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
Inhibition of PCR in Genital and Urine Specimens Submitted for Chlamydia trachomatis Testing
B. Toye, W. Woods, M. Bobrowska, K. Ramotar
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Aug 1998, 36 (8) 2356-2358; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.8.2356-2358.1998
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Chlamydia Infections
Chlamydia trachomatis
Genital Diseases, Female
Genital Diseases, Male
polymerase chain reaction
Specimen Handling

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