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 Three Different Methods for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in a Tertiary Pediatric Care Center

Emilie Vallières, Maude Saint-Jean, Fabien Rallu
Emilie Vallières
Département de Microbiologie et Immunologie, CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maude Saint-Jean
Département de Microbiologie et Immunologie, CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fabien Rallu
Département de Microbiologie et Immunologie, CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02219-12
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a well-known cause of sporadic and epidemic food-borne gastroenteritis. A low infectious dose, approximately 10 microorganisms, is sufficient to cause disease that may lead to hemolytic-uremic syndrome. The objective of this study was to compare the performances of an in-house real-time PCR, a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Premier EHEC; Meridian Bioscience), and culture on sorbitol MacConkey agar for the detection of STEC in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Of 632 stool samples tested, 21 were positive for STEC. All were detected by PCR, 6 were detected by EIA, and only 5 O157 STEC isolates were identified by culture. Among the 15 specimens falsely negative by EIA, there were 9 Stx1, 2 Stx2, and 4 Stx1 and Stx2 STEC isolates. The latter group included 2 O157 STEC isolates that would have been missed if only EIA had been performed. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study performed in a pediatric hospital which demonstrates the superiority of PCR over EIA for the detection of STEC. We conclude that PCR is specific and more sensitive than EIA. PCR should be considered for routine use in clinical settings where molecular detection facilities are available. Its lower limit of detection, equivalent to the infectious dose, is an obvious advantage for patient care and public health surveillance.

INTRODUCTION

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a well-known cause of sporadic and epidemic food-borne gastroenteritis, bloody diarrhea, and hemorrhagic colitis. This infection may lead to hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) in 5 to 15% of cases. This life-threatening condition, more frequent in children, consists of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and acute renal failure. HUS is still nowadays the primary cause of acute renal failure in pediatric patients (1, 2).

Shiga toxin-producing E. coli strains are defined by the expression of at least one type of Shiga toxin, Stx1 and Stx2, which are encoded on bacteriophages. Stx1 is genetically and structurally similar to the Shiga toxin produced by Shigella dysenteriae serotype 1 strains. However, the amino acid sequence of Stx2 is only 56% analogous to that of Stx1 (3–5). Several variants have been described for each type of toxin. They differ by their biological activities and pathogenicities (6). Isolates producing Stx2, alone or in combination with Stx1, are associated with more severe disease and a higher incidence of HUS than those harboring only Stx1 (7, 8). Specifically, Stx2c is recognized to be one of the most virulent variants (9–11). Moreover, other virulence factors have been demonstrated, mainly the intimin gene (eae) located on the locus of enterocyte effacement (LEE) pathogenicity island and the enterohemolysin (ehxA) gene (9, 10).

More than 200 different serotypes of E. coli can produce Shiga toxin, and among them, at least 150 are human pathogens (12–15) In the literature, STEC strains are usually categorized into O157 and non-O157 strains. This categorization is based mainly on historic factors: O157 was the first STEC serotype discovered, is the easiest to identify in a microbiology laboratory, and was thought to be more prevalent and virulent than other serotypes. However, studies from around the world have demonstrated that non-O157 serotypes are at least as prevalent as O157 (16–18). In the United States, epidemiological studies have shown that E. coli O26, O103, and O111 are the non-O157 serotypes most frequently encountered (19). Previous studies have also demonstrated that non-O157 STEC strains can cause severe disease similar to that of O157 STEC strains, with bloody diarrhea and HUS, specifically when they produce Stx2 (10, 20). Finally, the recent European O104:H4 outbreak was caused by a typical enteroaggregative E. coli strain that has acquired the bacteriophage encoding Stx. This demonstrates that STEC virulence factors encoded on mobile elements could spread among other pathotypes of diarrheagenic E. coli and thereafter represent a public health threat (21, 22).

In 2007, FoodNet surveyed all clinical laboratories that are part of their network to determine their diagnostic testing practices for the identification of STEC. Hoefer et al. reported the results: only 11% performed an Stx enzyme immunoassay (EIA) either alone or in combination with culture. It was a 5% improvement since 2003 (23). Similar results were obtained by Stigi et al.: in 2011, approximately 65% of Washington State microbiology laboratories were limiting the identification of STEC to the O157 serotype (17). Laboratories that test for non-O157 strains use EIAs (17, 23). Molecular detection is still not routinely used in clinical settings, likely because no commercial assays approved by the FDA for the diagnosis of human STEC infections are available.

In 2009, the CDC published guidelines stipulating that clinical laboratories should perform simultaneously an assay that will detect either the Shiga toxins directly or the genes encoding them and a selective culture for O157 STEC (24). The performance of both techniques at the same time enables laboratories to rapidly detect both O157 and non-O157 STEC isolates. It also ensures prompt outbreak investigations by public health authorities. In Canada, laboratories are required by law to report all STEC infections and not only those caused by O157 STEC isolates. This regulation warrants the implementation by clinical laboratories of assays that enable this surveillance.

In this study, we evaluated the performances of an in-house real-time PCR assay and of the Premier EHEC toxin EIA (Meridian Bioscience Inc., Cincinnati, OH) in a clinical microbiology laboratory of a tertiary care pediatric center. We also compared their performances with that of culture on sorbitol MacConkey agar (SMAC), which was already performed in our hospital as part of our routine workup for the detection of enteric bacterial pathogens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study description.This study took place at CHU Sainte-Justine (Montreal, Canada), a mother-child university health center with 484 beds and an average of 65,000 emergency room visits annually. From 1 June to 30 September 2009, 632 consecutive stool samples from pediatric patients (aged <18 years) submitted to the microbiology laboratory for the detection of bacterial enteric pathogens were included in the study. Samples were plated onto SMAC for the detection of O157 STEC. In addition, for each sample, 200 μl of watery stool or a pea-size amount of stool was inoculated into 5 ml MacConkey broth and incubated at 35°C for 15 to 24 h. The enrichment broth was then tested for the presence of Shiga toxins by the Premier EHEC assay (Meridian Bioscience Inc., Cincinnati, OH) and by real-time PCR for the detection of the stx1 and stx2 genes. All positive samples were sent to the Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) for confirmation. Clinical charts of all positive patients were reviewed.

Conventional culture.All stool samples were plated onto Columbia blood agar, Hektoen enteric agar, MacConkey agar, Skirrow agar, SMAC, and Yersinia selective agar for the detection of Aeromonas sp., Campylobacter sp., O157 STEC, Plesiomonas sp., Salmonella sp., Shigella sp., and Yersinia sp., as routinely recommended (25). For O157 STEC detection, the SMAC plates were incubated at 35°C for 16 to 24 h and then examined for non-sorbitol-fermenting colonies. Three colorless colonies were tested for the presence of the O157 lipopolysaccharide antigen by latex particle agglutination (Remel, Lenexa, KS). Colonies positive for O157 were then identified by conventional biochemical testing, using API 20E strips (bioMérieux, St-Laurent, Canada).

Enzyme immunoassays.The Premier EHEC assay is a microwell EIA for the detection of Shiga toxins 1 and 2 without the differentiation of the toxins. For all samples, 50 μl of incubated MacConkey broth was tested with this assay, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Following toxin detection by using the Premier EHEC kit, the Shiga toxin type was determined by using an immunochromatographic rapid test, the ImmunoCard Stat! EHEC assay (Meridian Bioscience Inc.), according to the manufacturer's instructions. The analytical specificities and sensitivities of both assays were respectively evaluated with a panel of organisms commonly isolated from feces and different dilutions of O157 STEC (see Table 2).

Real-time PCR.For each stool sample, bacterial DNA was extracted by using the QIAamp DNA blood minikit (Qiagen, Mississauga, Canada), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Briefly, 200 μl of incubated MacConkey broth was used for extraction, and DNA was eluted in 100 μl of elution buffer. The primers and MGB (minor grove binder) probes for stx1 and stx2 real-time PCR were chosen for specific regions of each gene (Table 1) by using Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). To detect PCR inhibition, primers and a probe were also designed in a plasmid (pARAB) containing part of the Arabidopsis thaliana chlorophyll synthetase gene (UHN Microarray Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada). The specificities of all primers and probes were confirmed by BLAST analysis (26). The real-time PCR assay was performed with an AB7500 instrument (Applied Biosystems) as a triplex reaction for the detection of stx1 (VIC dye), stx2 (6-carboxyfluorescein [FAM] dye), and the pARAB plasmid (NED dye), using the following amplifications conditions: 95°C for 15 min, 35 cycles of 95°C for 15 s, and 60°C for 40 s. The reactions were performed in a final volume of 25 μl, using the QuantiTect Multiplex PCR NoROX kit (Qiagen), with ROX (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) added at 50 nM, primers and probes at the optimal concentrations (Table 1), 130 copies of the pARAB plasmid, and 5 μl of extracted DNA. In each run, samples were tested in triplicates. Positive-control (O157 STEC genomic DNA positive for stx1 and stx2) and nontemplate control (PCR-grade water) samples were included. Cross-reactivity and sensitivity studies were performed with the same panel of organisms and concentrations of O157 STEC used for immunoassays (Table 2). All positive samples were sent to the Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory for confirmation with a real-time PCR assay that used different primers and probes (27).

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

Oligonucleotides used in the real-time PCR assay

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

Organisms tested for analytical sensitivity and specificity

STEC isolation.All positive samples were subcultured from MacConkey broth onto MacConkey agar plates, and a maximum of 100 colonies were tested for the presence of stx1 and/or stx2 by real-time PCR. All identified STEC isolates were sent to the National Microbiology Laboratory (Winnipeg, Canada) for typing of the O and H antigens.

RESULTS

Performances of PCR, Premier EHEC EIA, and SMAC culture. (i) Analytical specificity.No cross-reactivity or false-positive result occurred with any assay (Table 2). PCR and ImmunoCard Stat! EHEC properly detected the stx1 and stx2 genes and toxins, respectively.

(ii) Analytical sensitivity.The level of detection for the ImmunoCard Stat! EHEC assay was 107 CFU/ml of O157 STEC, and that for the Premier EHEC EIA was 106 CFU/ml. PCR was able to detect each target in a suspension of 102 CFU/ml (Table 2).

(iii) Performance with clinical specimens.During the study period, a total of 632 stool samples from 430 different pediatric patients were tested. Among them, 21 stool samples, representing 12 patients, were positive for STEC by at least one assay: PCR identified all of them, and 6 were detected by the Premier EHEC EIA. SMAC culture retrieved 5 STEC O157 isolates; 2 of them were missed by the EIA. Table 3 shows the performances of the different assays, according to the toxin type present in the sample. All samples positive by PCR were confirmed at the Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory by a second real-time PCR assay. Among the positive patients, 7 had submitted more than one stool sample. No discordant results occurred with PCR. Discordant results with the EIA were observed for three patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Performances of assays according to toxin type

Serotyping.Among the positive specimens, 16 Shiga toxin-producing strains were isolated by subculturing of MacConkey broth. A pathogenic strain was isolated from each EIA-positive sample. The National Microbiology Laboratory determined that 5 were O157 STEC and that 11 were non-O157 strains. Among the 7 E. coli isolates producing only Stx1, there were two O26:H11, two O49 (H10/H−), one O8:H9, one O73H29, and one O111:H− isolates. The 2 Stx2-producing strains were O153 (H9/H−) isolates. Finally, among the seven Stx1- and Stx2-positive isolates, there were five O157:H7 isolates (recovered by SMAC culture), one O3:H9 isolate, and one O86:H− isolate.

Other enteric bacterial pathogens.Of the 632 stool samples tested, 75 (11.9%) were positive by culture for an enteric bacterial pathogen other than STEC (Table 4). Salmonella sp. was the most frequently encountered pathogen, followed by Campylobacter sp.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4

Stool culture results for common enteric pathogens (n = 632 for 430 patients)

Patients.To ascertain the clinical specificity of the assays, we retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of the 12 positive patients. All patients but one were symptomatic. Two patients required hospitalization; they were infected by O157 STEC strains producing both Stx1 and Stx2. The first patient was detected by all assays. The second patient submitted 3 specimens; all were positive by PCR but negative by EIA. Culturing on SMAC recovered O157 STEC in one sample. No patient developed HUS. Otherwise, eight patients had bloody diarrhea (4 identified by EIA and 3 identified by SMAC culture). One of the patients, with infection detected only by PCR, underwent a diagnostic colonoscopy.

Three patients were infected by more than one enteric pathogen. One was coinfected with Campylobacter jejuni and E. coli O49:H10/H−. The second patient had 2 different STEC serotypes in his stool samples (E. coli O111:H− and O73:H29), and the third patient harbored 3 different strains (O157:H7, O86:H−, and O3:H9). Interestingly, the twin sister of the third patient was infected with a different strain (O153), despite the fact that they shared similar risk factors.

DISCUSSION

Traditionally, only O157 STEC was routinely identified in clinical diagnostic laboratories. Since most experts agree that this practice leads to an underestimation of STEC cases, the true prevalence remains largely unknown.

The purpose of our study was to compare and validate the performances of a real-time PCR assay, an enzyme immunoassay, and culture on SMAC for the detection of STEC in our pediatric population. In our laboratory, EIA identified only 29% of the positive samples, or 33% of the infected patients.

PCR performed better than the EIA that we tested, likely due to its higher analytical sensitivity. Indeed, our PCR level of detection is 104 times lower than that of the Premier EHEC EIA. A similar analytical sensitivity of 106 CFU/ml for Premier EHEC was previously reported by Willford et al. in a study that evaluated three commercially available EIA kits for the detection of STEC (28). The difference of 4 log10 units between the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and EIA is also concordant with results obtained previously by Chui et al. (29). However, in the latter study, the performance of the EIA in detecting Shiga toxin in stool samples was similar to that of PCR: it missed only 2 of the 21 positive specimens. This difference might be explained by a reference bias. The Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory is a reference center that likely receives specimens from sicker patients who may have a higher bacterial load, at a count detectable by EIA. In our study, the lower sensitivity of the EIA led to 15 false-negative samples from 8 different patients. False-negative specimens were associated with a lower inoculum; EIA did not detect samples with a real-time PCR crossing threshold (CT) of greater than 20 (data not shown). Moreover, considering that fewer than 100 bacteria may cause gastrointestinal disease and that the bacterial load decreases rapidly during the period of disease (3, 30–33), the better sensitivity of PCR represents a clear advantage that must be taken into account when implementing an assay for the detection of STEC. Also, according to our retrospective review of medical charts, severe clinical manifestations were seen even in patients with low bacterial loads, reinforcing the advantage of a sensitive assay.

During the study period, the EIA failed to detect two O157 isolates that were recovered by culture on SMAC and PCR. One of these patients had a severe clinical course, requiring hospitalization. This well-known limitation of the Premier EHEC EIA (34, 35) justifies the recommendation of performing culturing on SMAC simultaneously with a second assay targeting Shiga toxins or the genes encoding them.

The identification and reporting of the toxin type to clinicians are considered to be useful clinical information, with Stx2 recognized as being more virulent than Stx1 (7, 8). The Premier EHEC EIA has the disadvantage of relying on a second test to differentiate the type of toxin present in the sample. Performing the ImmunoCard Stat! assay is expensive, requires additional personnel time, and delays the emission of a final report. Given our increasing knowledge of STEC pathogenicity, assays that distinguish Stx subtypes and identify STEC virulence factors need to be developed and implemented in clinical practice. Patient management would likely be modified if this information was reported to clinicians and public health authorities.

The isolation of STEC strains is important for epidemiological purposes; a pure culture is needed for serotyping. In our study, 16 STEC strains were isolated from 8 patients. The difficulty in recovering STEC strains was previously reported by different authors (27, 29, 36). This may be explained by the freeze-and-thaw effect killing or inhibiting the growth of pathogens. It is also possible that the pathogen's inoculum size in some samples was too low for growth on an agar plate. Also, the performance of PCR on multiple colonies for each sample plated onto MacConkey agar is a time-consuming and demanding task with several limitations: STEC may easily have been missed, even if many colonies were tested for each sample. Because all our positive samples were confirmed by the Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory, it is unlikely that they were false-positive samples.

Among the 16 isolated STEC strains, 11 were non-O157 STEC isolates. Although we were not able to identify an STEC isolate from each stool sample, this result suggests that the majority of STEC infections in our population are caused by non-O157 serotypes. No non-O157 serotype predominated during our study period, suggesting the role of sporadic infection rather than an outbreak. However, this conclusion is limited by the fact that we are not a reference center. With the exception of O111 and O26, other non-O157 serotypes that we found do not seem to be routinely identified in North America. This may reflect the changing and poorly known epidemiology of non-O157 STEC infections (17).

Coinfections with other enteric bacterial pathogens were detected in three patients, one with simultaneous Campylobacter jejuni infection and the other two with multiple serotypes of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. This finding was previously described by many studies (37–40). Among them, Hedican et al. performed a sentinel surveillance of STEC infections in Minnesota and found 22 coinfected patients among 302 STEC-positive patients (40). This is likely due to a common fecal-oral route of transmission of enteric pathogens and potential massive contamination when basic rules of hygiene are broken.

The expected clinical impact of our assay is difficult to ascertain, given our small sample size. This project was a diagnostic assay validation study; therefore, clinicians were not aware of EIA or PCR results during the study period. Nonetheless, a review of the medical charts revealed that all but one of our patients were symptomatic. The severity of symptoms (hospitalization and bloody diarrhea) seemed to be associated with Stx2-producing strains, more precisely with O157 STEC strains. This observation is concordant with the medical literature but biased in our study by the fact that three out of the four patients harboring Stx2-producing strains were infected with O157 STEC. Since the introduction of PCR for the routine detection of STEC, we are now prospectively collecting data on identified cases to better define their clinical presentations and outcomes.

Little is known about the persistence of STEC pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract or about the prevalence of asymptomatic carriage. With the advent of molecular detection, clinicians will likely increasingly be faced with laboratory results that are discordant with the patient's clinical presentation. It will also be necessary to reinforce the importance of prescribing the test only when the pretest probability is high and in situations for which it has been validated, i.e., the detection of community-acquired diarrhea.

To our knowledge, ours is the first prospective study to compare head-to-head an in-house real-time PCR and a commercial EIA in a clinical pediatric laboratory setting. The performance of PCR in addition to culture increased our STEC detection rate by 320%, while the addition of the EIA instead increased it by only 60%. In a recent point-counterpoint published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, authors arguing against universal screening for Shiga toxin based their reasoning on cost-effectiveness and presumed low-prevalence arguments. They nuanced their opinion, stipulating that each laboratory should realize a prevalence study in their own population and consider performing universal screening for Shiga toxin if the prevalence of STEC is as high as that of other enteric pathogens (41). In our study, the prevalence of STEC was 3,3%, which makes it the third most common bacterial pathogen in our pediatric population, similar to Campylobacter sp. In short, the epidemiological and PCR performance data obtained in this study justify the implementation cost of a molecular assay able to detect all STEC serotypes in our clinical laboratory and may lead to increasing numbers of microbiology laboratories performing these assays to detect STEC.

Conclusion.This study highlights the superiority of molecular assays for the detection of STEC. It also demonstrates the high prevalence of non-O157 STEC strains in our epidemiology, supporting the implementation of routine screening for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. Our results are concordant with current CDC recommendations. Clearly, we would underestimate the prevalence of STEC infections if only O157 cultures are performed. In our hospital, we have decided to implement PCR in the routine for each stool sample sent for enteric bacterial pathogen detection. Due to its increased sensitivity, we suggest that where resources and facilities are available, molecular detection should be favored instead of an enzyme immunoassay. Further work is needed to better define the clinical specificity of PCR, the duration of STEC shedding after an infection, and the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers in order to help clinicians and guide public health authority recommendations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge Linda Chui from the Alberta Provincial Public Health Laboratory for confirmation of all positive samples, the National Microbiology Laboratory for performing the serotyping, and Fatima Kakkar for reviewing the manuscript. We also thank Somagen Diagnostics for providing the enzyme immunoassay kits.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 19 August 2012.
    • Returned for modification 17 September 2012.
    • Accepted 19 November 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 21 November 2012.
  • Copyright © 2013, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Karmali MA
    . 1989. Infection by verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2:15–38.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Karmali MA,
    2. Petric M,
    3. Lim C,
    4. Fleming PC,
    5. Arbus GS,
    6. Lior H
    . 1985. The association between idiopathic hemolytic uremic syndrome and infection by verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli. J. Infect. Dis. 151:775–782.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Gyles CL
    . 2007. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli: an overview. J. Anim. Sci. 85:E45–E62. doi:10.2527/jas.2006-508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Jackson MP,
    2. Newland JW,
    3. Holmes RK,
    4. O'Brien AD
    . 1987. Nucleotide sequence analysis of the structural genes for Shiga-like toxin I encoded by bacteriophage 933J from Escherichia coli. Microb. Pathog. 2:147–153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. O'Brien AD,
    2. Tesh VL,
    3. Donohue-Rolfe A,
    4. Jackson MP,
    5. Olsnes S,
    6. Sandvig K,
    7. Lindberg AA,
    8. Keusch GT
    . 1992. Shiga toxin: biochemistry, genetics, mode of action, and role in pathogenesis. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 180:65–94.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Friedrich AW,
    2. Bielaszewska M,
    3. Zhang WL,
    4. Pulz M,
    5. Kuczius T,
    6. Ammon A,
    7. Karch H
    . 2002. Escherichia coli harboring Shiga toxin 2 gene variants: frequency and association with clinical symptoms. J. Infect. Dis. 185:74–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Boerlin P,
    2. McEwen SA,
    3. Boerlin-Petzold F,
    4. Wilson JB,
    5. Johnson RP,
    6. Gyles CL
    . 1999. Associations between virulence factors of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and disease in humans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:497–503.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ostroff SM,
    2. Tarr PI,
    3. Neill MA,
    4. Lewis JH,
    5. Hargrett-Bean N,
    6. Kobayashi JM
    . 1989. Toxin genotypes and plasmid profiles as determinants of systemic sequelae in Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections. J. Infect. Dis. 160:994–998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Eklund M,
    2. Leino K,
    3. Siitonen A
    . 2002. Clinical Escherichia coli strains carrying stx genes: stx variants and stx-positive virulence profiles. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:4585–4593.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ethelberg S,
    2. Olsen KE,
    3. Scheutz F,
    4. Jensen C,
    5. Schiellerup P,
    6. Enberg J,
    7. Petersen AM,
    8. Olesen B,
    9. Gerner-Smidt P,
    10. Molbak K
    . 2004. Virulence factors for hemolytic uremic syndrome, Denmark. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10:842–847.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Persson S,
    2. Olsen KE,
    3. Ethelberg S,
    4. Scheutz F
    . 2007. Subtyping method for Escherichia coli Shiga toxin (verocytotoxin) 2 variants and correlations to clinical manifestations. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45:2020–2024.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. Laboratory-confirmed non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli—Connecticut, 2000-2005. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 56:29–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Johnson KE,
    2. Thorpe CM,
    3. Sears CL
    . 2006. The emerging clinical importance of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Clin. Infect. Dis. 43:1587–1595.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mead PS,
    2. Slutsker L,
    3. Dietz V,
    4. McCaig LF,
    5. Bresee JS,
    6. Shapiro C,
    7. Griffin PM,
    8. Tauxe RV
    . 1999. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:607–625.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mead PS,
    2. Slutsker L,
    3. Griffin PM,
    4. Tauxe RV
    . 1999. Food-related illness and death in the United States reply to Dr. Hedberg. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:841–842.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Nielsen EM,
    2. Scheutz F,
    3. Torpdahl M
    . 2006. Continuous surveillance of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis shows that most infections are sporadic. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 3:81–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Stigi KA,
    2. Macdonald JK,
    3. Tellez-Marfin AA,
    4. Lofy KH
    . 2012. Laboratory practices and incidence of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18:477–479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Vally H,
    2. Hall G,
    3. Dyda A,
    4. Raupach J,
    5. Knope K,
    6. Combs B,
    7. Desmarchelier P
    . 2012. Epidemiology of Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli in Australia, 2000-2010. BMC Public Health 12:63. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brooks JT,
    2. Sowers EG,
    3. Wells JG,
    4. Greene KD,
    5. Griffin PM,
    6. Hoekstra RM,
    7. Strockbine NA
    . 2005. Non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections in the United States, 1983_2002. J. Infect. Dis. 192:1422–1429.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Schifferli A,
    2. von Vigier RO,
    3. Fontana M,
    4. Sparta G,
    5. Schmid H,
    6. Bianchetti MG,
    7. Rudin C
    . 2010. Hemolytic-uremic syndrome in Switzerland: a nationwide surveillance 1997-2003. Eur. J. Pediatr. 169:591–598.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Rasko DA,
    2. Webster DR,
    3. Sahl JW,
    4. Bashir A,
    5. Boisen N,
    6. Scheutz F,
    7. Paxinos EE,
    8. Sebra R,
    9. Chin CS,
    10. Iliopoulos D,
    11. Klammer A,
    12. Peluso P,
    13. Lee L,
    14. Kislyuk AO,
    15. Bullard J,
    16. Kasarskis A,
    17. Wang S,
    18. Eid J,
    19. Rank D,
    20. Redman JC,
    21. Steyert SR,
    22. Frimodt-Moller J,
    23. Struve C,
    24. Petersen AM,
    25. Krogfelt KA,
    26. Nataro JP,
    27. Schadt EE,
    28. Waldor MK
    . 2011. Origins of the E. coli strain causing an outbreak of hemolytic-uremic syndrome in Germany. N. Engl. J. Med. 365:709–717.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Scheutz F,
    2. Nielsen EM,
    3. Frimodt-Moller J,
    4. Boisen N,
    5. Morabito S,
    6. Tozzoli R,
    7. Nataro JP,
    8. Caprioli A
    . 2011. Characteristics of the enteroaggregative Shiga toxin/verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli O104:H4 strain causing the outbreak of haemolytic uraemic syndrome in Germany, May to June 2011. Euro Surveill. 16(24):pii=19889. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19889.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hoefer D,
    2. Hurd S,
    3. Medus C,
    4. Cronquist A,
    5. Hanna S,
    6. Hatch J,
    7. Hayes T,
    8. Larson K,
    9. Nicholson C,
    10. Wymore K,
    11. Tobin-D'Angelo M,
    12. Strockbine N,
    13. Snippes P,
    14. Atkinson R,
    15. Griffin PM,
    16. Gould LH
    . 2011. Laboratory practices for the identification of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in the United States, FoodNet sites, 2007. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 8:555–560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Gould LH,
    2. Bopp C,
    3. Strockbine N,
    4. Atkinson R,
    5. Baselski V,
    6. Body B,
    7. Carey R,
    8. Crandall C,
    9. Hurd S,
    10. Kaplan R,
    11. Neill M,
    12. Shea S,
    13. Somsel P,
    14. Tobin-D'Angelo M,
    15. Griffin PM,
    16. Gerner-Smidt P
    . 2009. Recommendations for diagnosis of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections by clinical laboratories. MMWR Recommend. Rep. 58(RR12):1–14.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Garcia LS
    . 2010. Fecal and other gastrointestinal culture and toxin assays, sections 3.8.1–3.8.2. In Garcia LS (ed), Clinical microbiology procedures handbook, 3rd ed, vol 1. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Altschul SF,
    2. Madden TL,
    3. Schaffer AA,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Zhang Z,
    6. Miller W,
    7. Lipman DJ
    . 1997. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25:3389–3402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Chui L,
    2. Couturier MR,
    3. Chiu T,
    4. Wang G,
    5. Olson AB,
    6. McDonald RR,
    7. Antonishyn NA,
    8. Horsman G,
    9. Gilmour MW
    . 2010. Comparison of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli detection methods using clinical stool samples. J. Mol. Diagn. 12:469–475.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Willford J,
    2. Mills K,
    3. Goodridge LD
    . 2009. Evaluation of three commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits for detection of Shiga toxin. J. Food Prot. 72:741–747.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Chui L,
    2. Lee M-C,
    3. Malejczyk K,
    4. Lim L,
    5. Fok D,
    6. Kwong P
    . 2011. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) as detected by enzyme-linked immunoassays and real-time PCR during the summer months in northern Alberta, Canada. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:4307–4310.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Paton AW,
    2. Ratcliff RM,
    3. Doyle RM,
    4. Seymour-Murray J,
    5. Davos D,
    6. Lanser JA,
    7. Paton JC
    . 1996. Molecular microbiological investigation of an outbreak of hemolytic-uremic syndrome caused by dry fermented sausage contaminated with Shiga-like toxin-producing Escherichia coli. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34:1622–1627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Paton JC,
    2. Paton AW
    . 1998. Pathogenesis and diagnosis of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 11:450–479.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Teunis P,
    2. Takumi K,
    3. Shinagawa K
    . 2004. Dose response for infection by Escherichia coli O157:H7 from outbreak data. Risk Anal. 24:401–407.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    1. Tilden J Jr,
    2. Young W,
    3. McNamara AM,
    4. Custer C,
    5. Boesel B,
    6. Lambert-Fair MA,
    7. Majkowski J,
    8. Vugia D,
    9. Werner SB,
    10. Hollingsworth J,
    11. Morris JG Jr
    . 1996. A new route of transmission for Escherichia coli: infection from dry fermented salami. Am. J. Public Health 86:1142–1145.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Klein EJ,
    2. Stapp JR,
    3. Clausen CR,
    4. Boster DR,
    5. Wells JG,
    6. Qin X,
    7. Swerdlow DL,
    8. Tarr PI
    . 2002. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in children with diarrhea: a prospective point-of-care study. J. Pediatr. 141:172–177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Klein EJ,
    2. Stapp JR,
    3. Neill MA,
    4. Besser JM,
    5. Osterholm MT,
    6. Tarr PI
    . 2004. Shiga toxin antigen detection should not replace sorbitol MacConkey agar screening of stool specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:4416–4417.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Pulz M,
    2. Matussek A,
    3. Monazahian M,
    4. Tittel A,
    5. Nikolic E,
    6. Hartmann M,
    7. Bellin T,
    8. Buer J,
    9. Gunzer F
    . 2003. Comparison of a Shiga toxin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and two types of PCR for detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in human stool specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:4671–4675.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Bopp DJ,
    2. Sauders BD,
    3. Waring AL,
    4. Ackelsberg J,
    5. Dumas N,
    6. Braun-Howland E,
    7. Dziewulski D,
    8. Wallace BJ,
    9. Kelly M,
    10. Halse T,
    11. Musser KA,
    12. Smith PF,
    13. Morse DL,
    14. Limberger RJ
    . 2003. Detection, isolation, and molecular subtyping of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Campylobacter jejuni associated with a large waterborne outbreak. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:174–180.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Estrada-Garcia T,
    2. Lopez-Saucedo C,
    3. Thompson-Bonilla R,
    4. Abonce M,
    5. Lopez-Hernandez D,
    6. Santos JI,
    7. Rosado JL,
    8. DuPont HL,
    9. Long KZ
    . 2009. Association of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli pathotypes with infection and diarrhea among Mexican Children and association of atypical enteropathogenic E. coli with acute diarrhea. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47:93–98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Gilmour MW,
    2. Tabor H,
    3. Wang G,
    4. Clark CG,
    5. Tracz DM,
    6. Olson AB,
    7. Mascarenhas M,
    8. Karmali MA,
    9. Mailman T,
    10. Ng L-K
    . 2007. Isolation and genetic characterization of a coinfection of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45:3771–3773.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Hedican EB,
    2. Medus C,
    3. Besser JM,
    4. Juni BA,
    5. Koziol B,
    6. Taylor C,
    7. Smith KE
    . 2009. Characteristics of O157 versus non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections in Minnesota, 2000-2006. Clin. Infect. Dis. 49:358–364.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Kiska DL,
    2. Riddell SW
    . 2011. Counterpoint: should all stools be screened for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli? J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:2394–2397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of Three Different Methods for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in a Tertiary Pediatric Care Center
Emilie Vallières, Maude Saint-Jean, Fabien Rallu
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jan 2013, 51 (2) 481-486; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02219-12

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 Three Different Methods for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in a Tertiary Pediatric Care Center
(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 Three Different Methods for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in a Tertiary Pediatric Care Center
Emilie Vallières, Maude Saint-Jean, Fabien Rallu
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jan 2013, 51 (2) 481-486; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02219-12
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • 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

 

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