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 TaqMan PCR Assays for Detection of the Melioidosis Agent Burkholderia pseudomallei in Clinical Specimens

Mirjam Kaestli, Leisha J. Richardson, Rebecca E. Colman, Apichai Tuanyok, Erin P. Price, Jolene R. Bowers, Mark Mayo, Erin Kelley, Meagan L. Seymour, Derek S. Sarovich, Talima Pearson, David M. Engelthaler, David M. Wagner, Paul S. Keim, James M. Schupp, Bart J. Currie
Mirjam Kaestli
aGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leisha J. Richardson
aGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca E. Colman
bTranslational Genomics Research Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Apichai Tuanyok
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin P. Price
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jolene R. Bowers
bTranslational Genomics Research Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Mayo
aGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin Kelley
bTranslational Genomics Research Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Meagan L. Seymour
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Derek S. Sarovich
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Talima Pearson
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David M. Engelthaler
bTranslational Genomics Research Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David M. Wagner
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul S. Keim
bTranslational Genomics Research Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
cCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James M. Schupp
bTranslational Genomics Research Institute, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bart J. Currie
aGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
dDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Northern Territory Clinical School, Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.06737-11
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Melioidosis is an emerging infectious disease caused by the soil bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei. In diagnostic and forensic settings, molecular detection assays need not only high sensitivity with low limits of detection but also high specificity. In a direct comparison of published and newly developed TaqMan PCR assays, we found the TTS1-orf2 assay to be superior in detecting B. pseudomallei directly from clinical specimens. The YLF/BTFC multiplex assay (targeting the Yersinia-like fimbrial/Burkholderia thailandensis-like flagellum and chemotaxis region) also showed high diagnostic sensitivity and provides additional information on possible geographic origin.

TEXT

Melioidosis is an emerging infectious disease caused by the Gram-negative soil bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei (13). Infection is usually via cutaneous inoculation or inhalation, and disease presentations range from asymptomatic, to localized skin infection or pneumonia, to disseminated disease with abscesses in multiple organs, resulting in fulminant sepsis with mortality rates of >50% (9). Increasing numbers of cases are being observed globally, likely reflecting both improved diagnostics (12) and a true increase in cases in those living in or traveling from regions where melioidosis is endemic (11, 16, 17). Culture remains the “gold standard” for diagnosis of melioidosis, but is problematic due to sensitivity issues, lack of familiarity with B. pseudomallei in laboratories in areas where the disease is nonendemic (17), and poor specificity of biochemical tests (18). Subsequent delayed diagnosis can result in life-threatening delays in appropriate antimicrobial therapy (9).

Other diagnostic techniques for B. pseudomallei detection include antigen detection by immunofluorescence microscopy (34) or latex agglutination (3); however, these suffer from reduced sensitivity or dependence on an initial culture step, delaying time to diagnosis (1). Culture is also required for matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (14). Serological diagnosis is unreliable due to background antibody levels in areas of endemicity and low sensitivity and specificity (10, 33).

While high-throughput sequencing technologies are not yet feasible for routine diagnostics (23), various other molecular platforms have been developed for rapid identification of B. pseudomallei. These include DNA microarrays (25), gene sequencing (15, 32), isothermal DNA amplification (7), and real-time PCR assays targeting specific regions of the B. pseudomallei genome (2, 5, 19–21, 26–30) (see Table S1 in the supplemental material).

Despite this abundance of published assays, the techniques used for validating criteria vary substantially between studies. Furthermore, few have been evaluated directly on clinical samples (8, 20, 27, 28). Thus, it is difficult to determine which of these assays would perform best in a diagnostic or forensic setting, in which high specificity and sensitivity with a low limit of detection (LoD) are paramount.

The aim of this study was to focus on real-time TaqMan PCR assays and assess the best available genomic target to date for B. pseudomallei detection in clinical samples. Seven real-time PCR assays were directly compared by assessing their analytical and diagnostic specificities and sensitivities (4, 6).

Based on superior reported specificity and LoD (see Table S1 in the supplemental material), four previously published real-time TaqMan PCR assays were included, namely, TTS1-orf2 (22) and TTS1-orf11 (29) targeting the type III secretion (TTS) system gene cluster, lpxO (19) and 8653 (27) (Table 1). The mprA target based on a previously published PCR assay (21) was validated with a TaqMan probe (Primer Express 3.0 software; Life Technologies). A multiplex TaqMan assay targeting the Yersinia-like fimbrial/Burkholderia thailandensis-like flagellum and chemotaxis (YLF/BTFC) region (31) was also assessed, together with a newly developed dual-probe assay, 266152, which targets the methylmalonate-semialdehyde dehydrogenase locus and differentiates between B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis (Table 1).

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

Overview of primer and probe sequences of TaqMan real-time PCR assays validated in this article

For analytical sensitivity and specificity, real-time PCR was carried out as previously reported (5). In brief, PCR mixtures consisted of 10 μl of 900 nM primers, 200 nM probe, 1× Applied Biosystems genotyping master mix (Life Technologies), and 0.5 ng template DNA. Thermal cycling was performed on an AB 7900HT sequence detection system (Life Technologies) at 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 10 min, and 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 s and 58°C for 1 min. The 266152 assay was performed with 1× Applied Biosystems universal master mix and 300 nM primers. The LoD was defined as the lowest possible template concentration detectable with 95% probability with at least 61/64 positive replicates (4, 6). Specificity was evaluated by screening 365 B. pseudomallei strains and 115 non-B. pseudomallei strains (with 71 Burkholderia spp. and 44 bacterial species of differential diagnostic importance [see full list in the supplemental material]). A threshold cycle (CT) value of 40 was the declared cutoff for a positive result.

Clinical evaluation was performed by screening each assay across 50 clinical specimens (22 sputum, 20 blood, and 8 urine samples) from 22 patients with acute melioidosis, 59% of whom presented with pneumonia and 18% with genitourinary infection, with 55% overall being bacteremic. These samples were part of a study comparing DNA extraction techniques for molecular detection of B. pseudomallei in clinical specimens (24); while all samples were from culture-confirmed melioidosis cases, not every specimen from each patient was cultured for B. pseudomallei. Blood samples from 22 healthy volunteers were used as negative controls. DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA minikit (Qiagen, Australia) and PureGene blood core kit B (Qiagen). PCR conditions were as previously described (24), using the 1× Applied Biosystems environmental master mix. Samples were declared positive if 2/2 duplicates had CT values of <40.

All assays showed high analytical specificity, with the TTS1-orf2, 8653, mprA and 266152 assays being 100% specific for both B. pseudomallei and nontarget strains (Table 2). The lpxO assay showed reduced specificity as it also amplified 14/23 Burkholderia mallei DNA targets. The TTS1-orf2 and YLF/BTFC assays had the lowest LoD of 5 genome equivalents (GE) per reaction (Table 2). Variations from previously reported LoD were apparent from our data and are likely due to the strict LoD definition we used to determine the lowest possible template concentration detectable with 95% probability (4, 6). The low LoD of TTS1-orf2 and YLF/BTFC assays was also reflected in their high diagnostic sensitivity. Of the 43 clinical samples that tested positive for B. pseudomallei by one or more assays, 42 were positive by several assays and one only by TTS1-orf2. The mprA assay performed least well in the clinical evaluation and had a significantly lower detection rate than the TTS1-orf2, YLF/BTFC, and lpxO assays (McNemar's test for paired samples, P < 0.001 for all, 2-tailed) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

List of validation results from real-time PCR assays

These data support the TTS1-orf2 assay as the best-performing assay to date for direct detection of B. pseudomallei in clinical specimens. The YLF/BTFC multiplex assay also performed well and in addition to B. pseudomallei detection provides information on the potential geographic origin of the tested isolate, with BTFC being common in Australia (88%) but rare in Thailand (2%) (31). As the YLF locus was also found in some close relatives of B. pseudomallei (A. Tuanyok, unpublished data), this assay should be used with caution on environmental samples.

As an additional informative assay, we included a dual-probe assay discriminating between B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis. This assay was designed for screening culture isolates and showed high specificity. No differences in clinical detection rates were found when including both probes or only the B. pseudomallei-specific probe. Due to cross-hybridization, this assay should be used with caution on environmental samples where potentially both B. pseudomallei and B. thailandensis could be present.

Although the probe chemistry was tested as in the original publications, the PCR conditions were not adjusted to the original optimized conditions for each assay; we used an adaptation of the TaqMan universal PCR protocol (Life Technologies), with the same conditions for all assays. The inferior performance of the mprA assay in the clinical evaluation may reflect that the original assay was not probe based and had an annealing temperature of 68°C, which differs from the conditions we used.

In summary, we have shown that the TTS1-orf2 assay provides the best available molecular target to date for B. pseudomallei detection directly from clinical samples. Furthermore, the YLF/BTFC multiplex assay, which provides additional information on the possible geographic origin of a B. pseudomallei isolate, also showed high diagnostic sensitivity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Microbiology Laboratory and medical and nursing colleagues at Royal Darwin Hospital for assistance with sample collection and Alex Humphrey and Eleanor Woolveridge for laboratory assistance. We are thankful to the patients and volunteers who consented to provide clinical specimen. Ethics approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health and the Menzies School of Health Research (HREC 04/09).

This project was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (Project grant 605820), grants NIH NIAID UO1-A1075568 and NIH NIAID U54-65359, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSHQDC-10-C-00139).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 1 January 2012.
    • Returned for modification 6 February 2012.
    • Accepted 1 March 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 21 March 2012.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.06737-11.

  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Amornchai P,
    2. et al
    . 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.↵
    1. Andresen K,
    2. Dargis R,
    3. Kemp M,
    4. Christensen JJ
    . 2009. Detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei by SYBR green real time PCR. Open Pathol. J. 3:30–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Anuntagool N,
    2. et al
    . 2000. Monoclonal antibody-based rapid identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei in blood culture fluid from patients with community-acquired septicaemia. J. Med. Microbiol. 49:1075–1078.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Armbruster DA,
    2. Pry T
    . 2008. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Clin. Biochem. Rev. 29(Suppl. 1):S49–S52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bowers JR,
    2. et al
    . 2010. BurkDiff: a real-time PCR allelic discrimination assay for Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei. PLoS One 5:e15413.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bustin SA,
    2. et al
    . 2009. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin. Chem. 55:611–622.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Chantratita N,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification method targeting the TTS1 gene cluster for detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei and diagnosis of melioidosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46:568–573.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Chantratita N,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Prospective clinical evaluation of the accuracy of 16S rRNA real-time PCR assay for the diagnosis of melioidosis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 77:814–817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Cheng AC,
    2. Currie BJ
    . 2005. Melioidosis: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 18:383–416.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cheng AC,
    2. O'Brien M,
    3. Freeman K,
    4. Lum G,
    5. Currie BJ
    . 2006. Indirect hemagglutination assay in patients with melioidosis in northern Australia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 74:330–334.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Currie BJ
    . 2003. Melioidosis: an important cause of pneumonia in residents of and travellers returned from endemic regions. Eur. Respir. J. 22:542–550.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Currie BJ,
    2. Dance DA,
    3. Cheng AC
    . 2008. The global distribution of Burkholderia pseudomallei and melioidosis: an update. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 102(Suppl 1):S1–S4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Dance DA
    . 2000. Melioidosis as an emerging global problem. Acta Trop. 74:115–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Emonet S,
    2. Shah HN,
    3. Cherkaoui A,
    4. Schrenzel J
    . 2010. Application and use of various mass spectrometry methods in clinical microbiology. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 16:1604–1613.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gee JE,
    2. et al
    . 2003. Use of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for rapid identification and differentiation of Burkholderia pseudomallei and B. mallei. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:4647–4654.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Getaz L,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Fatal acute melioidosis in a tourist returning from Martinique Island, November 2010. Euro Surveill. 16:19758.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Limmathurotsakul D,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Defining the true sensitivity of culture for the diagnosis of melioidosis using Bayesian latent class models. PLoS One 5:e12485.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Lowe P,
    2. Engler C,
    3. Norton R
    . 2002. Comparison of automated and nonautomated systems for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:4625–4627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Merritt A,
    2. Inglis TJJ,
    3. Chidlow G,
    4. Harnett G
    . 2006. PCR-based identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo 48:239–244.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Meumann EM,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Clinical evaluation of a type III secretion system real-time PCR for diagnosing melioidosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:3028–3030.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Neubauer H,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Development and clinical evaluation of a PCR assay targeting the metalloprotease gene (mprA) of B. pseudomallei. Zoonoses Public Health 54:44–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Novak RT,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Development and evaluation of a real-time PCR assay targeting the type III secretion system of Burkholderia pseudomallei. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44:85–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Pallen MJ,
    2. Loman NJ,
    3. Penn CW
    . 2010. High-throughput sequencing and clinical microbiology: progress, opportunities and challenges. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 13:625–631.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Richardson LJ,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Towards a rapid molecular diagnostic for melioidosis: comparison of DNA extraction methods from clinical specimens. J. Microbiol. Methods 88:179–181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Schmoock G,
    2. et al
    . 2006. DNA microarray-based detection and identification of Burkholderia mallei, Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia spp. Mol. Cell. Probes 23:178–187.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Sonthayanon P,
    2. Krasao P,
    3. Wuthiekanun V,
    4. Panyim S,
    5. Tungpradabkul S
    . 2002. A simple method to detect and differentiate Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis using specific flagellin gene primers. Mol. Cell. Probes 16:217–222.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Supaprom C,
    2. et al
    . 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
  28. 28.↵
    1. Suppiah J,
    2. Thimma JS,
    3. Cheah SH,
    4. Vadivelu J
    . 2010. Development and evaluation of polymerase chain reaction assay to detect Burkholderia genus and to differentiate the species in clinical specimens. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 306:9–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Thibault FM,
    2. Valade E,
    3. Vidal DR
    . 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
  30. 30.↵
    1. Tomaso H,
    2. et al
    . 2005. Rapid presumptive identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei with real-time PCR assays using fluorescent hybridization probes. Mol. Cell. Probes 19:9–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Tuanyok A,
    2. et al
    . 2007. A horizontal gene transfer event defines two distinct groups within Burkholderia pseudomallei that have dissimilar geographic distributions. J. Bacteriol. 189:9044–9049.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Woo PCY,
    2. Woo GKS,
    3. Lau SKP,
    4. Wong SSY,
    5. Yuen KY
    . 2002. Single gene target bacterial identification: groEL gene sequencing for discriminating clinical isolates of Burkholderia pseudomallei and Burkholderia thailandensis. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 44:143–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wuthiekanun V,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Evaluation of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG rapid cassette test kits for diagnosis of melioidosis in an area of endemicity. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:3435–3437.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Wuthiekanun V,
    2. et al
    . 2005. Rapid immunofluorescence microscopy for diagnosis of melioidosis. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 12:555–556.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of TaqMan PCR Assays for Detection of the Melioidosis Agent Burkholderia pseudomallei in Clinical Specimens
Mirjam Kaestli, Leisha J. Richardson, Rebecca E. Colman, Apichai Tuanyok, Erin P. Price, Jolene R. Bowers, Mark Mayo, Erin Kelley, Meagan L. Seymour, Derek S. Sarovich, Talima Pearson, David M. Engelthaler, David M. Wagner, Paul S. Keim, James M. Schupp, Bart J. Currie
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2012, 50 (6) 2059-2062; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.06737-11

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 TaqMan PCR Assays for Detection of the Melioidosis Agent Burkholderia pseudomallei in Clinical Specimens
(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 TaqMan PCR Assays for Detection of the Melioidosis Agent Burkholderia pseudomallei in Clinical Specimens
Mirjam Kaestli, Leisha J. Richardson, Rebecca E. Colman, Apichai Tuanyok, Erin P. Price, Jolene R. Bowers, Mark Mayo, Erin Kelley, Meagan L. Seymour, Derek S. Sarovich, Talima Pearson, David M. Engelthaler, David M. Wagner, Paul S. Keim, James M. Schupp, Bart J. Currie
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2012, 50 (6) 2059-2062; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.06737-11
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • 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

 

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