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

Evaluation of Molecular Assays for Rapid Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Liesbet Van Heirstraeten, Andie Lee, José Cortinas Abrahantes, Christine Lammens, Evelyn Vanhommerig, Geert Molenberghs, Marc Aerts, Stephan Harbarth, Herman Goossens, ; on behalf of the MOSAR WP2 Study Team
Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar
1Department of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: surbhi.malhotra@ua.ac.be
Liesbet Van Heirstraeten
1Department of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andie Lee
2University of Geneva Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José Cortinas Abrahantes
3Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christine Lammens
1Department of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evelyn Vanhommerig
1Department of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geert Molenberghs
3Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Aerts
3Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephan Harbarth
2University of Geneva Hospitals and Medical School, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Herman Goossens
1Department of Medical Microbiology, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00004-10
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The diagnostic sensitivities of the BD GeneOhm and Cepheid Xpert assays were compared using culture on log-serial dilutions of well-characterized methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and non-MRSA strains and on nasal and groin swabs from patients with histories of MRSA carriage. The sensitivities of GeneOhm and Xpert were high at 103-CFU/ml MRSA concentrations (92.3% and 96.3%, respectively) although decreased considerably (<35%) at a 1-log-lower concentration. Unexpectedly, both assays also detected select coagulase-negative staphylococci, which requires further evaluation.

Effective and rapid laboratory diagnosis is critical for treating, managing, and preventing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. PCR-based MRSA detection assays offer certain benefits over conventional culture techniques, such as lower limits of detection (LoDs), high-throughput screening, and, importantly, shorter time to detection. Currently, two of the most promising commercially available PCR-based assays for MRSA detection are the GeneOhm MRSA (BD Diagnostics, Erembodegem, Belgium) and Xpert MRSA (Cepheid, Bouwel, Belgium) assays (reviewed in reference 10). Both target the junction of the mobile element staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) carrying the mecA methicillin resistance gene in S. aureus (6).

(Part of this work was presented at the 19th ECCMID, 16 to 19 May 2009, Helsinki, Finland.)

We first evaluated and compared the diagnostic sensitivities of the BD GeneOhm and Cepheid Xpert MRSA assays for patient screening samples compared to culture—both direct and subsequent to overnight enrichment—on conventional/chromogenic media (mannitol salt agar with 4 μg/ml cefoxitin and BBL-CHROMagar [BD Diagnostics]), followed by confirmatory testing, as previously described (9, 21). Fifty-two nose and groin samples were prospectively collected in 1.5 ml brain heart infusion broth and 15% glycerol from 26 previously identified MRSA carriers at the University of Geneva Hospitals. Patient samples were tested according to manufacturers' recommendations by the GeneOhm and Xpert assays, showing similar sensitivities for MRSA detection (96% and 93%, respectively) compared to direct culture, which detected 28 samples as MRSA positive (Table 1). Consistent with recent reports (1, 21), an overnight enrichment protocol drastically increased the MRSA true-positive status of the patient screening samples compared to direct culture (42/52 versus 28/52 samples). For the 14 samples that did not show any MRSA CFU on direct culture, Xpert successfully detected MRSA in 2 samples and GeneOhm in 7 samples, suggesting an increased sensitivity of these PCR-based assays over direct cultures. However, when preenriched-culture results were taken as the gold standard, GeneOhm and Xpert showed significantly reduced sensitivities of 81% (McNemar test; P = 0.039) and 66.7% (P = 0.001), respectively (Table 1). However, the sensitivities of GeneOhm and Xpert were not significantly different from each other, with an overall concordance of 80.8% (n = 42, Cohen's kappa = 0.60), or concordances of 76.9% (n = 20; kappa = 0.54) and 84.6% (n = 22; kappa = 0.65) for nasal and groin samples, respectively. These data for previously identified MRSA carriers are similar to those for recent hospital-based studies showing comparable high sensitivities for GeneOhm and Xpert for patient screening samples from the nose/groin or throat compared to the results for direct culture but a reduced performance compared to the results for enriched culture (7, 24). Only three samples with MRSA loads of 100 CFU/ml or more were not detected by these assays. These samples included two groin samples for Xpert and a nasal sample for GeneOhm from a patient that carried MRSA only in the nose. Because certain SCCmec IV variants are reported not to be detected by these assays, possibly due to an altered SCCmec element, we performed SCCmec genotyping as described previously (5). SCCmec I was the predominant clone identified in all but two strains that harbored one each of SCCmec II and IV. Interestingly, the nasal sample that GeneOhm failed to identify carried SCCmec IV MRSA.

To identify the actual LoDs of GeneOhm and Xpert for divergent MRSA clones as well as to overcome the inherently low level of epidemiological diversity observed among clinical samples collected from a single hospital, we analyzed 27 distinct MRSA strains at defined concentrations. These strains harbored distinct SCCmec subtypes and comprised some of the most prevalent, well-characterized clonal lineages that have disseminated worldwide in hospitals and communities, including animal-associated MRSA strains that are carried by and cause disease in humans (2, 22) (see Table S1 in the supplemental material). MRSA strains were tested in these assays with serial dilutions from 100 through 105 CFU/ml (1, 10, 102, 103, 104, and 105 CFU/ml) until a positive result was obtained. Both assays showed high sensitivities for detection of pure MRSA strains at concentrations of 103 CFU/ml, with the average LoDs for GeneOhm (430 CFU/swab, or 4,300 CFU/ml) and Xpert (250 CFU/swab, or 3,300 CFU/ml) corroborating previous data (16, 17) (GeneOhm MRSA package insert) (Table 2). Nonetheless, the steep drop in sensitivity at 102 CFU/ml brings into question the ability of these assays to accurately detect MRSA carriage at lower concentrations in carriers, including carriers who have completed decolonization treatment but in whom complete eradication has not been achieved (14, 23). Moreover, 3 MRSA strains could not be detected at 103 CFU/ml but could be detected at a 1-log-higher concentration in two independent experiments. These strains included MRSA strains harboring SCCmec III/sequence type 239 (ST239) (GeneOhm; human MRSA strain 9) (Table S1), SCCmec IV/ST398 (GeneOhm; animal MRSA strain 19), or SCCmec V/ST398 (Xpert; animal MRSA strain 20). The reduced sensitivities of detection observed for these MRSA strains corroborate previous reports of detection failures for human and animal MRSA harboring SCCmec types III, IV, and V in these assays (8, 15, 19, 20). While the precise reason for this is unknown, sequence variations in the targeted orfX-SCCmec junction region, which are especially common in animal MRSA (13), are the most likely reason for the poor performance of the molecular assays with specific MRSA strains. Hence, from a clinical-use perspective, iterative modifications of the molecular assays based on epidemiological changes will be necessary for optimal sensitivities to be sustained.

Lastly, we also studied cross-reactions to non-MRSA strains for mixtures of select MRSA and non-MRSA strains, including various methicillin-resistant and -sensitive coagulase-negative staphylococci (MRCoNS and MSCoNS, respectively) (n = 25) (see Table S1 in the supplemental material, strains 28 through 52). Twenty-one mixtures of non-MRSA/MRSA strains were prepared as described in the supplemental material and assayed with serial dilutions from 100- to 105-CFU/ml MRSA concentrations. Interestingly, increased sensitivity (and decreased LoD) was observed for MRSA strains in mixtures spiked with non-MRSA strains compared to the level for pure MRSA strains at similar concentrations (Table 2). To study whether this increased sensitivity was due to cross-reactivity to non-MRSA strains, we tested all 25 pure non-MRSA strains individually as well as 8 mixtures comprising only non-MRSA strains at a single high concentration of 105 to 106 CFU/ml MRSA. Those showing false-positive results for either molecular assay were confirmed with log-serial dilutions. False-positive detections of pure non-MRSA strains and their mixtures were observed sporadically for GeneOhm (all 5 MRCoNS and 1 of 3 MSCoNS strains tested) and Xpert (3 MRCoNS and 2 MSCoNS strains) (see Table S2 in the supplemental material for the threshold cycle [CT ] values obtained for these strain dilutions). In a previous analytical study by Huletsky and colleagues, approximately 250 MRCoNS and MSCoNS strains did not show any false-positive detection with an in-house real-time PCR targeting orfX-SCCmec junction (6). GeneOhm and Xpert are also based on the same principle, although the primer targets might differ from those used by Huletsky et al. (6). A U.S.-based study tested 44 strains of MRCoNS and MSCoNS on Xpert and did not find any cross-reactivity (24), although the species and SCCmec types present in these strains were not described in the study. In yet another analytical study, Francois and colleagues showed false-positive results for GeneOhm with MSSA, but MRCoNS were not tested (4). Some other clinical studies with large numbers of human screening samples have also shown false-positive results; however, the underlying cross-reactive organisms could not be completely elucidated (3, 7). Interestingly, in similarity to S. aureus, the vicinity of the orfX gene is also a preferred site for insertion of SCCmec cassettes in other staphylococci, and frequent exchange of parts or of entire SCCmec elements or even of non-mecA-containing SCC elements is also common in these organisms (11, 12). Preliminary sequencing of the orfX-SCCmec junction region in select falsely positive MRCoNS has shown high homology to MRSA (S. Malhotra-Kumar, M. Gazin, L. Van Heirstraeten, and H. Goossens, unpublished results). Thus, in addition to the well-described cross-reactivity with MSSA (18), our study shows that the presence of select MRCoNS in human screening samples could also affect the specificity of orfX-SCCmec-targeting assays.

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

Sensitivities of GeneOhm and Xpert for detection of MRSA from patient screening samples in comparison to results for direct and preenriched cultures

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Sensitivities and limits of detection for the two assays tested on pure strains and their defined mixtures at various concentrations

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank BD Diagnostics and Cepheid for providing test kits and recommendations for patient sample and strain testing. We thank the MOSAR WP2 partners (Waleria Hryniewicz, Jordi Vila, Marek Gniadkowski, and Claire Poyart) for providing strains. S.H. and A.L. gratefully acknowledge the staff of the Staphylococcal Laboratory and the Infection Control Program at the University of Geneva Hospitals for assistance with specimen collection and processing.

This work, L.V.H., and A.L. were supported by funding from the European Community (MOSAR network contract LSHP-CT-2007-037941 and TheraEdge network contract FP7-216027). S.M.-K. is funded by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO-V), Belgium. The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. S.M.-K. has received a speaker's honorarium from BD Diagnostics. We declare no conflict of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 2 January 2010.
    • Returned for modification 5 May 2010.
    • Accepted 29 September 2010.
  • † Supplemental material for this article may be found at https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00004-10 .

  • Copyright © 2010 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    de San, N., O. Denis, M. F. Gasasira, R. De Mendonca, C. Nonhoff, and M. J. Struelens. 2007. Controlled evaluation of the IDI-MRSA assay for detection of colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diverse mucocutaneous specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45 : 1098-1101.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Ekkelenkamp, M. B., M. Sekkat, N. Carpaij, A. Troelstra, and M. J. Bonten. 2006. Endocarditis due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus originating from pigs. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 150 : 2442-2447. (In Dutch.)
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Farley, J. E., P. D. Stamper, T. Ross, M. Cai, S. Speser, and K. C. Carroll. 2008. Comparison of the BD GeneOhm methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) PCR assay to culture by use of BBL CHROMagar MRSA for detection of MRSA in nasal surveillance cultures from an at-risk community population. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 743-746.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Francois, P., M. Bento, G. Renzi, S. Harbarth, D. Pittet, and J. Schrenzel. 2007. Evaluation of three molecular assays for rapid identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45 : 2011-2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Francois, P., G. Renzi, D. Pittet, M. Bento, D. Lew, S. Harbarth, P. Vaudaux, and J. Schrenzel. 2004. A novel multiplex real-time PCR assay for rapid typing of major staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec elements. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42 : 3309-3312.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Huletsky, A., R. Giroux, V. Rossbach, M. Gagnon, M. Vaillancourt, M. Bernier, F. Gagnon, K. Truchon, M. Bastien, F. J. Picard, A. van Belkum, M. Ouellette, P. H. Roy, and M. G. Bergeron. 2004. New real-time PCR assay for rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus directly from specimens containing a mixture of staphylococci. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42 : 1875-1884.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Kelley, P. G., E. A. Grabsch, B. P. Howden, W. Gao, and M. L. Grayson. 2009. Comparison of the Xpert methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) assay, BD GeneOhm MRSA assay, and culture for detection of nasal and cutaneous groin colonization by MRSA. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47 : 3769-3772.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Laurent, C., P. Bogaerts, D. Schoevaerdts, O. Denis, A. Deplano, C. Swine, M. J. Struelens, and Y. Glupczynski. 2010. Evaluation of the Xpert MRSA assay for rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from nares swabs of geriatric hospitalized patients and failure to detect a specific SCCmec type IV variant. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. doi:10.1007/s10096-010-0958-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Malhotra-Kumar, S., J. C. Abrahantes, W. Sabiiti, C. Lammens, G. Vercauteren, M. Ieven, G. Molenberghs, M. Aerts, and H. Goossens. 2010. Evaluation of chromogenic media for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48 : 1040-1046.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Malhotra-Kumar, S., K. Haccuria, M. Michiels, M. Ieven, C. Poyart, W. Hryniewicz, and H. Goossens. 2008. Current trends in rapid diagnostics for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and glycopeptide-resistant enterococcus species. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 1577-1587.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Miragaia, M., I. Couto, and H. de Lencastre. 2005. Genetic diversity among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE). Microb. Drug Resist. 11 : 83-93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Mongkolrattanothai, K., S. Boyle, T. V. Murphy, and R. S. Daum. 2004. Novel non-mecA-containing staphylococcal chromosomal cassette composite island containing pbp4 and tagF genes in a commensal staphylococcal species: a possible reservoir for antibiotic resistance islands in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48 : 1823-1836.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Reischl, U., J. Frick, S. Hoermansdorfer, H. Melzl, M. Bollwein, H. J. Linde, K. Becker, R. Kock, C. Tuschak, U. Busch, and A. Sing. 2009. Single-nucleotide polymorphism in the SCCmec-orfX junction distinguishes between livestock-associated MRSA CC398 and human epidemic MRSA strains. Euro Surveill. 14(49): pii=19436.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Rohr, U., C. Mueller, M. Wilhelm, G. Muhr, and S. Gatermann. 2003. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus whole-body decolonization among hospitalized patients with variable site colonization by using mupirocin in combination with octenidine dihydrochloride. J. Hosp. Infect. 54 : 305-309.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Roosendaal, R., J. A. Kluytmans, J. H. Woudenberg, X. Huijsdens, and C. M. Vandenbroucke-Grauls. 2007. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains from animal origin are recognized by IDI-MRSA PCR. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 13(s1): S234.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Rossney, A. S., C. M. Herra, G. I. Brennan, P. M. Morgan, and B. O'Connell. 2008. Evaluation of the Xpert methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) assay using the GeneXpert real-time PCR platform for rapid detection of MRSA from screening specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 3285-3290.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Rossney, A. S., C. M. Herra, M. M. Fitzgibbon, P. M. Morgan, M. J. Lawrence, and B. O'Connell. 2007. Evaluation of the IDI-MRSA assay on the SmartCycler real-time PCR platform for rapid detection of MRSA from screening specimens. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 26 : 459-466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Shore, A. C., A. S. Rossney, B. O'Connell, C. M. Herra, D. J. Sullivan, H. Humphreys, and D. C. Coleman. 2008. Detection of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec-associated DNA segments in multiresistant methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and identification of Staphylococcus epidermidis ccrAB4 in both methicillin-resistant S. aureus and MSSA. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52 : 4407-4419.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Sissonen, S., T. Pasanen, S. Salmenlinna, J. Vuopio-Varkila, E. Tarkka, M. Vaara, and P. Tissari. 2009. Evaluation of a commercial MRSA assay when multiple MRSA strains are causing epidemics. Eur.J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 28 : 1271-1273.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    Thomas, L., S. van Hal, M. O'Sullivan, P. Kyme, and J. Iredell. 2008. Failure of the BD GeneOhm StaphS/R assay for identification of Australian methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains: duplex assays as the “gold standard” in settings of unknown SCCmec epidemiology. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 4116-4117.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Van Heirstraeten, L., J. C. Abrahantes, C. Lammens, A. Lee, S. Harbarth, G. Molenberghs, M. Aerts, H. Goossens, and S. Malhotra-Kumar. 2009. Impact of a short pre-enrichment on detection and bacterial loads of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from screening specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 10 : 3326-3328.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    van Rijen, M. M., P. H. van Keulen, and J. A. Kluytmans. 2008. Increase in a Dutch hospital of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus related to animal farming. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46 : 261-263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Wolk, D. M., J. L. Marx, L. Dominguez, D. Driscoll, and R. B. Schifman. 2009. Comparison of MRSASelect agar, CHROMagar methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) medium, and Xpert MRSA PCR for detection of MRSA in nares: diagnostic accuracy for surveillance samples with various bacterial densities. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47 : 3933-3936.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Wolk, D. M., E. Picton, D. Johnson, T. Davis, P. Pancholi, C. C. Ginocchio, S. Finegold, D. F. Welch, M. de Boer, D. Fuller, M. C. Solomon, B. Rogers, M. S. Mehta, and L. R. Peterson. 2009. Multicenter evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) test as a rapid screening method for detection of MRSA in nares. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47 : 758-764.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Evaluation of Molecular Assays for Rapid Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Liesbet Van Heirstraeten, Andie Lee, José Cortinas Abrahantes, Christine Lammens, Evelyn Vanhommerig, Geert Molenberghs, Marc Aerts, Stephan Harbarth, Herman Goossens on behalf of the MOSAR WP2 Study Team
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Nov 2010, 48 (12) 4598-4601; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00004-10

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.
Evaluation of Molecular Assays for Rapid Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(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
Evaluation of Molecular Assays for Rapid Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Surbhi Malhotra-Kumar, Liesbet Van Heirstraeten, Andie Lee, José Cortinas Abrahantes, Christine Lammens, Evelyn Vanhommerig, Geert Molenberghs, Marc Aerts, Stephan Harbarth, Herman Goossens on behalf of the MOSAR WP2 Study Team
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Nov 2010, 48 (12) 4598-4601; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00004-10
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
Carrier State
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
Staphylococcal Infections

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