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

Comparison of Routine Bench and Molecular Diagnostic Methods in Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei

Kelly Hodgson, Cathy Engler, Brenda Govan, Natkunam Ketheesan, Robert Norton
Kelly Hodgson
1School of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4814
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cathy Engler
2Microbiology, Pathology Queensland, Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4814
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brenda Govan
1School of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4814
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natkunam Ketheesan
1School of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4814
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Norton
2Microbiology, Pathology Queensland, Townsville Hospital, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4814
  • 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.02507-08
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

This study compared the identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei with that of related organisms. Bench tests and latex agglutination were compared with molecular identification. Using bench tests and latex agglutination alone, 100% (30/30) of B. pseudomallei isolates were correctly identified. Amoxicillin-clavulanate susceptibility testing was also a good and simple discriminatory test.

Melioidosis is an infectious disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei, which is endemic in Southeast Asia and northern Australia. Cases occur mainly during periods of heavy rain (13). It is a clinically diverse infection affecting many organ systems and commonly presents as a fulminant septicemia (3, 4).

There has been controversy as to the optimal identification system for B. pseudomallei (2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19). The reliability of the API 20NE and the Vitek 1 systems (bioMérieux, Marcy L'Etoile, France) has been questioned and molecular confirmation suggested (14). The reliability of presumptive tests (oxidase, Gram staining, resistance to gentamicin and polymyxin) in the identification of this organism has previously been described as 100% accurate (6). It should be noted that neither system will distinguish related species such as Burkholderia thailandensis from B. pseudomallei.

The commonest misidentification of B. pseudomallei when using identification systems is with Burkholderia cepacia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Chromobacterium spp. (1). A recent study compared the API 20NE system and a latex agglutination assay and found that the API 20NE system identified 99% of B. pseudomallei isolates correctly. It did not however distinguish between B. thailandensis and B. pseudomallei. The addition of the latex agglutination test correctly identified 99.5% of isolates and was negative for 98% of the B. thailandensis isolates and other oxidase-positive gram-negative bacilli (1). Molecular identification of the organism has been described, using a number of genomic targets (14, 17, 18).

A previous study compared basic bench diagnostic presumptive tests with B. pseudomallei slide agglutination using a monoclonal antibody, API 20NE (bioMérieux, Marcy L'Etoile, France), cellular fatty acid analysis, and molecular detection (10). This showed that the PCR alone had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. API 20NE performed poorly in this study, with a sensitivity of 37% and a specificity of 92% (10). The agglutination test used had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 83%. Although fatty acid analysis had a sensitivity of 98% and a specificity of 83%, it was acknowledged that this technology was not widely available. Interestingly, the presumptive tests (oxidase, Gram staining, resistance to gentamicin and polymyxin) did not distinguish between B. pseudomallei, B. cepacia, and B. thailandensis. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacies of standard presumptive identification methods (oxidase, gentamicin resistance, and amoxicillin-clavulanate susceptibility), including a specific latex agglutination assay, with specific molecular detection in the identification of B. pseudomallei to determine whether low-cost nonmolecular techniques may still be useful in resource-poor areas for the diagnosis of melioidosis.

Of the total of 43 bacterial isolates used, 30 were B. pseudomallei, three were B. cepacia, five were B. thailandensis, one was Chromobacterium violaceum (nonpigmented), and four were P. aeruginosa. All isolates were clinical isolates except for the B. thailandensis isolates, which were of environmental origin. Burkholderia mallei, a closely related species, was not used as a comparator because it is not misidentified as B. pseudomallei or vice versa with identification systems. It is also susceptible to gentamicin. All B. pseudomallei isolates investigated were from North Queensland. The identity of all isolates was confirmed using the Vitek 1 and API 20NE systems, and the isolates were stored at −70°C. These isolates had been validated in a previous study (12). The sequenced B. pseudomallei K96243 isolate was used as a control for real-time PCR. All isolates were subcultured onto Columbia horse blood agar (bioMérieux, Australia), incubated in air at 37°C for 24 h, and checked for purity. Single colonies were inoculated into Mueller-Hinton broth (bioMérieux, Australia) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. Mueller-Hinton agar (bioMérieux, Australia) was used for susceptibility testing. All isolates were coded to ensure that the operator performing the identification was unaware of the identity of the isolate. Oxidase tests were performed by a standard oxidase reagent-impregnated strip method with appropriate controls. Susceptibility testing was carried out using a standard method with discs containing 20/10 μg amoxicillin-clavulanate and 10 μg gentamicin (5). The plates were incubated in air at 37°C for 24 h. As there are no CLSI zone diameter standards for B. pseudomallei, the standards for P. aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae were used. Zones of inhibition to gentamicin of ≥15 mm and to amoxicillin-clavulanate of ≥18 mm were considered susceptible (5). The latex reagent and the techniques used have been reported in detail in a previous study (1). PCR amplification was performed as previously described, with similar primers and probes (17), using Rotor-Gene 3000 (Corbett Life Science, Australia) with minor modifications. Bovine serum albumin was not added to the master mix. ImmoMix Taq (Bioline) was used with deoxynucleoside triphosphate (200 μM) at a final MgCl2 concentration of 2.5 mM.

The following primers and probes were used: primer BPSS1187/BURPS1710b_A0179 (B. pseudomallei-unique sequence) (forward, ATCGAATCAGGGCGTTCAAG; reverse, CATTCGGTGACGACACGACC) and probe 6-carboxyfluorescein-CGCCGCAAGACGCCATCGTTCAT-6-carboxytetramethylrhodamine. The probe is labeled with a reporter dye, 6-carboxyfluorescein, and a quencher dye, 6-carboxytetramethylrhodamine.

A total of 33 isolates were presumptively identified as B. pseudomallei on the basis of a positive oxidase test, resistance to gentamicin, and susceptibility to amoxicillin-clavulanate. These included four of the five B. thailandensis isolates and 29 of the 30 B. pseudomallei isolates (Table 1). One of the B. thailandensis isolates was not presumptively identified as B. pseudomallei as expected, due to a reduced zone of inhibition to amoxicillin-clavulanate. One of the B. pseudomallei isolates failed to be presumptively identified as B. pseudomallei, as it had a zone of inhibition to gentamicin of 22 mm. Nevertheless, it was confirmed with both latex agglutination and quantitative real-time PCR. B. pseudomallei is intrinsically resistant to gentamicin, although rare isolates which are susceptible to gentamicin have been described (16). When presumptive identification was compared with definitive identification (Table 1), presumptive identification had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 69%, a positive predictive value of 88%, and a negative predictive value of 90% (P < 0.0001; Fisher's exact test). If B. thailandensis isolates were excluded, presumptive identification would have a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 97%.

We used amoxicillin-clavulanate susceptibility rather than colistin resistance to distinguish between B. cepacia (resistant) and B. pseudomallei (sensitive). When tested against amoxicillin-clavulanate, 93.6% (278/297) of B. cepacia isolates tested over a 10-year period were resistant (Antibiogram, Pathology Queensland; unpublished data). All isolates of B. pseudomallei, in this study, tested susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate. A previous study also demonstrated that 100% (69/69) of B. pseudomallei isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate (15). Colistin, on the other hand, does not reliably distinguish B. cepacia from B. pseudomallei, as both are almost invariably resistant (7).

It is acknowledged that the number of isolates tested in this study is small and that the results need to be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, this study has demonstrated that presumptive tests are highly predictive in the identification of B. pseudomallei. While presumptive identification will misidentify B. thailandensis as B. pseudomallei, this is unlikely to be of clinical significance, as B. thailandensis is rarely recovered from clinical specimens (8). The use of amoxicillin-clavulanate susceptibility testing for presumptive identification of B. pseudomallei has not been described previously. Combined with a latex agglutination assay, it would further validate the identification of B. pseudomallei. Therefore, we conclude that these tests lend themselves to be used in regions where kit identification methods are costly and where sustainable molecular detection techniques are unrealistic.

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

Isolates presumptively and definitively identified as B. pseudomallei

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Tim Inglis, PathCentre, Perth, Australia, for providing the strains of B. thailandensis. We also acknowledge Surasakdi Wongratanacheewin of Khon Kaen University, Thailand, for providing the latex agglutination reagent and Jenny Elliman of James Cook University, Australia, for the technical assistance with real-time PCR.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 31 December 2008.
    • Returned for modification 14 February 2009.
    • Accepted 28 February 2009.
  • Copyright © 2009 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Amornchai, P., W. Chierakul, V. Wuthiekanun, Y. Mahakhunkijcharoen, R. Phetsouvanh, B. J. Currie, P. N. Newton, N. van Vinh Chau, S. Wongratanacheewin, N. P. J. Day, and S. J. Peacock. 2007. Accuracy of Burkholderia pseudomallei identification using the API 20NE system and a latex agglutination test. J. Clin. Microbiol.45:3774-3776.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Ashdown, L. 1979. Identification of Pseudomonas pseudomallei in the clinical laboratory. J. Clin. Pathol.32:500-504.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Chaowagul, W., N. J. White, D. A. B. Dance, Y. Wattanagoon, P. Naigowit, T. M. E. Davis, S. Looareesuwan, and N. Pitakwatchara. 1989. Melioidosis: a major cause of community-acquired septicemia in northeastern Thailand. J. Infect. Dis.159:890-899.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Cheng, A., and B. Currie. 2005. Melioidosis: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.18:383-416.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 18th informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S18. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  6. 6.↵
    Dance, D. A., V. Wuthiekanun, P. Naigowit, and N. J. White. 1989. Identification of Pseudomonas pseudomallei in clinical practice: use of simple screening tests and API 20NE. J. Clin. Pathol.42:645-648.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Gales, A. C., A. O. Reis, and R. N. Jones. 2001. Contemporary assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for polymyxin B and colistin: review of available interpretative criteria and quality control guidelines. J. Clin. Microbiol.39:183-190.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Glass, M. B., J. E. Gee, A. G. Steigerwalt, D. Cavuoti, T. Barton, R. D. Hardy, D. Godoy, B. G. Spratt, T. A. Clark, and P. P. Wilkins. 2006. Pneumonia and septicemia caused by Burkholderia thailandensis in the United States. J. Clin. Microbiol.44:4601-4604.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Inglis, T. J., D. Chiang, G. S. Lee, and L. Chor-Kiang. 1998. Potential misidentification of Burkholderia pseudomallei by API 20NE. Pathology30:62-64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Inglis, T. J., A. Merritt, G. Chidlow, M. Aravena-Roman, and G. Harnett. 2005. Comparison of diagnostic laboratory methods for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J. Clin. Microbiol.43:2201-2206.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Kiratisin, P., P. Santanirand, N. Chantratita, and S. Kaewdaeng. 2007. Accuracy of commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei versus Burkholderia cepacia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.59:277-281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Lowe, P., C. Engler, and R. Norton. 2002. A comparison of automated and nonautomated identification systems for Burkholderia pseudomallei. J. Clin. Microbiol.40:4625-4627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Malczewski, A. B., K. M. Oman, R. E. Norton, and N. Ketheesan. 2005. Clinical presentation of melioidosis in Queensland, Australia. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg.99:856-860.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Merritt, A., T. J. Inglis, G. Chidlow, and G. Harnett. 2006. PCR based identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo48:239-244.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Seymour-Murray, J., R. E. Norton, and C. Ashhurst-Smith. 1997. Comparative in vitro susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei to cefpirome, ceftazidime and cefepime. Pathology29:329-330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Simpson, A. J., N. J. White, and V. Wuthiekanun. 1999. Aminoglycoside and macrolide resistance in Burkholderia pseudomallei. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.43:2332.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Supaprom, C., D. Wang, C. Leelayuwat, W. Thaewpia, W. Susaengrat, V. Koh, E. Ooi, G. Lertmemongkolchai, and Y. Liu. 2007. Development of real-time PCR assays and evaluation of their potential use for rapid detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in clinical blood specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol.45:2894-2901.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Thibault, F., E. Valade, and D. Vidal. 2004. Identification and discrimination of Burkholderia pseudomallei, B. mallei, and B. thailandensis by real-time PCR targeting type III secretion system genes. J. Clin. Microbiol.42:5871-5874.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Wuthiekanun, V., L. Anuntagool, N. White, and S. Sirisinha. 2002. A rapid method for the differentiation of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.66:759-761.
    OpenUrlAbstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of Routine Bench and Molecular Diagnostic Methods in Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei
Kelly Hodgson, Cathy Engler, Brenda Govan, Natkunam Ketheesan, Robert Norton
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Apr 2009, 47 (5) 1578-1580; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02507-08

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 Routine Bench and Molecular Diagnostic Methods in 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.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of Routine Bench and Molecular Diagnostic Methods in Identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei
Kelly Hodgson, Cathy Engler, Brenda Govan, Natkunam Ketheesan, Robert Norton
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Apr 2009, 47 (5) 1578-1580; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02507-08
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

bacteriological techniques
Burkholderia pseudomallei
melioidosis
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques

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