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
    • 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
    • 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

Comparison of Automated and Nonautomated Systems for Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei

Peter Lowe, Catherine Engler, Robert Norton
Peter Lowe
Central Queensland Pathology Laboratory, Mackay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Engler
Clinical Microbiology, Queensland Health Pathology Services, The Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Norton
Clinical Microbiology, Queensland Health Pathology Services, The Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Robert_Norton@health.qld.gov.au
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.12.4625-4627.2002
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei, the causative agent of melioidosis, is usually not difficult in laboratories in areas where it is endemic. With the increase in international travel and the threat of bioterrorism, it has become more likely that laboratories in areas where it is not endemic could encounter this organism. The increase in the use of and dependence upon automated identification systems makes accurate identification of uncommonly encountered organisms such as B. pseudomallei critically important. This study compares the manual API 20NE and 20E identification systems with the automated Vitek 1 and 2 systems. A total of 103 B. pseudomallei isolates were tested and correctly identified in 98%, 99%, 99%, and 19% of cases, respectively. The failure of the Vitek 2 to correctly identify B. pseudomallei was largely due to differences in the biochemical reactions achieved compared to expected values in the database. It is suggested that this deficiency in the Vitek 2 may be due to the large number of uncertain results reported for these isolates. These results reduce the discriminating ability of the instrument to distinguish between uncommonly encountered isolates such as those of B. pseudomallei.

  • American Society for Microbiology
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of Automated and Nonautomated Systems for Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei
Peter Lowe, Catherine Engler, Robert Norton
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2002, 40 (12) 4625-4627; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.12.4625-4627.2002

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.
Comparison of Automated and Nonautomated Systems for Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei
(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.
Share
Comparison of Automated and Nonautomated Systems for Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei
Peter Lowe, Catherine Engler, Robert Norton
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2002, 40 (12) 4625-4627; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.12.4625-4627.2002
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

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

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

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