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

Gold Standard Cholera Diagnostics Are Tarnished by Lytic Bacteriophage and Antibiotics

E. J. Nelson, J. A. Grembi, D. L. Chao, J. R. Andrews, L. Alexandrova, P. H. Rodriguez, V. V. Ramachandran, M. A. Sayeed, J. F. Wamala, A. K. Debes, D. A. Sack, A. J. Hryckowian, F. Haque, S. Khatun, M. Rahman, A. Chien, A. M. Spormann, G. K. Schoolnik
Karen C. Carroll, Editor
E. J. Nelson
aDepartments of Pediatrics and Environmental and Global Health, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
bDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for E. J. Nelson
J. A. Grembi
cDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. L. Chao
dInstitute for Disease Modeling, Bellevue, Washington, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. R. Andrews
eDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Alexandrova
fVincent Coates Foundation Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. H. Rodriguez
aDepartments of Pediatrics and Environmental and Global Health, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
V. V. Ramachandran
bDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. A. Sayeed
aDepartments of Pediatrics and Environmental and Global Health, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. F. Wamala
gCountry Preparedness and IHR (CPI), World Health Organization (South Sudan), Juba, South Sudan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. K. Debes
hJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. A. Sack
hJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. J. Hryckowian
iDepartment of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Haque
jInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Khatun
jInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Rahman
jInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Chien
fVincent Coates Foundation Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. M. Spormann
cDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. K. Schoolnik
eDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen C. Carroll
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00412-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A fundamental, clinical, and scientific concern is how lytic bacteriophage, as well as antibiotics, impact diagnostic positivity. Cholera was chosen as a model disease to investigate this important question, because cholera outbreaks enable large enrollment, field methods are well established, and the predatory relationship between lytic bacteriophage and the etiologic agent Vibrio cholerae share commonalities across bacterial taxa. Patients with diarrheal disease were enrolled at two remote hospitals in Bangladesh. Diagnostic performance was assessed as a function of lytic bacteriophage detection and exposure to the first-line antibiotic azithromycin, detected in stool samples by mass spectrometry. Among diarrheal samples positive by nanoliter quantitative PCR (qPCR) for V. cholerae (n = 78/849), the odds that a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) or qPCR was positive was reduced by 89% (odds ratio [OR], 0.108; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.002 to 0.872) and 87% (OR, 0.130; 95% CI, 0.022 to 0.649), respectively, when lytic bacteriophage were detected. The odds that an RDT or qPCR was positive was reduced by more than 99% (OR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.28) and 89% (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.44), respectively, when azithromycin was detected. Analysis of additional samples from South Sudan found similar phage effects on RDTs; antibiotics were not assayed. Cholera burden estimates may improve by accommodating for the negative effects of lytic bacteriophage and antibiotic exposure on diagnostic positivity. One accommodation is using bacteriophage detection as a proxy for pathogen detection. These findings have relevance for other diagnostic settings where bacterial pathogens are vulnerable to lytic bacteriophage predation.

INTRODUCTION

There are approximately 4.5 billion diarrheal disease cases per year (1). While the 2 to 4 million cases of cholera that occur annually represent a small fraction of the total cases (2), cholera inflicts a high morbidity and mortality on populations with extreme poverty. Outbreaks begin when immunologically susceptible human hosts are exposed to the Gram-negative pathogen Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139 serogroups) from contaminated food or water (3). Before modern rehydration regimens, mortality rates rose above 20% (4) from acute secretory diarrhea resulting from the action of cholera toxin (3). For cases treated with oral or intravenous rehydration, mortality rates decrease to less than one percent (5, 6). Antibiotics are recommended for cholera patients with moderate to severe dehydration (7, 8), but in practice most cholera patients are likely ordered antibiotics (27, 36, 44). Asymptomatic cases are detected by a rise in antibody titer but negative stool studies, typically by microbial culture (9). V. cholerae is shed from the human host with increased infectivity (10, 11). This hyperinfectivity is suggested to drive the exponential phase of outbreaks (12).

Patients often shed V. cholerae-specific lytic bacteriophages (ICP1, ICP2, and ICP3). The receptor for ICP1 is the O-antigen lipopolysaccharide (13–15), and the ICP2 receptor is OmpU, which is regulated by ToxR; removal of either protein impedes ICP2 (13, 16). The receptor for ICP3 is assumed to be the O-antigen lipopolysaccharide (17). While the host range of ICP1 is O1 V. cholerae, ICP2 and ICP3 can infect non-O1 V. cholerae (16). These vibriophages are proposed to quench outbreaks based on data that a higher percentage of patients shed vibriophages during the collapse of an outbreak (18–21). Vibriophages are detected in aquatic settings with correlates to outbreaks (19, 22), and ICP1 has been shown to maintain infectivity in environmental water (23).

Diagnostically, culture and PCR are the best available gold standards for the detection of V. cholerae (24, 25). Alternative methods include direct immunofluorescence microscopy for the O-antigen polysaccharide (OPS) (26), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that rely on OPS-specific antibodies, and, recently, nanoliter quantitative PCR (nl-qPCR) (27, 28); nl-qPCR uses standard quantitative PCR chemistry in nanoliter reaction volumes that are loaded robotically onto chips with 5,000 wells (TaKaRa Bio USA; formerly WaferGen, Inc.). RDTs are intended to be durable in field settings where clinical laboratories are not available but diagnostic information is vital to outbreak response (25). Commercialized RDTs for cholera typically consist of a lateral-flow device (dipstick). One end of the RDT is placed in the test material that also contains a pad with mobile gold-labeled monoclonal antibody for the target pathogen. The gold-labeled antibody bound to antigen is drawn vertically up the RDT by capillary action past a test line with unlabeled monoclonal antibody for the target pathogen and then a control line with a goat anti-mouse antibody that binds the nonvariable region of the monoclonal antibody (29).

The rationale for this study was based on the recognition that cholera RDTs have limited adoption because of variable performance for unknown reasons (25, 30–33); immediately testing stool samples demonstrated broad sensitivities (58 to 100%) and specificities (71 to 100%). A modified method that enriches for V. cholerae in alkaline peptone water (APW) to increase specificity to 91 to 99% is associated with a decrease in sensitivity (30, 31, 34). Both lytic bacteriophage and antibiotics have been postulated to impact diagnostics (33). Developing an RDT that has both high sensitivity and specificity is a formidable task. One of the most commonly used RDTs is a lateral-flow RDT for group A Streptococcus (Gram positive). This RDT has a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 95% (35). Clinically, this means 14 out of 100 patients may have streptococcal pharyngitis but might be misdiagnosed and, therefore, not receive the indicated antibiotic. An important question that has generalizability is if antibiotics or lytic bacteriophage affect the results in these 14 patients.

Using cholera as a model, we tested the hypothesis that lytic bacteriophage, and antibiotics, negatively impact diagnostics within the confines of a previously published clinical study (36). In brief, the study was conducted from September to December 2015 at the district hospital, and a subdistrict hospital, in the remote northern district of Netrokona, Bangladesh, which is prone to seasonal cholera outbreaks. Inclusion criteria were patients at least 2 months old and presenting with acute (<7 days) diarrhea (>3 loose stools in the 24 h prior to admission) without complications. Additional analyses were performed on samples from South Sudan to broaden the experimental scope of this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants.This study was conducted within the confines of previously published studies in Bangladesh (36) and South Sudan (37). Ethical approvals were obtained for the Bangladesh study at the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of Stanford University School of Medicine and the Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research, Bangladesh Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (36), and for the South Sudan study at the IRBs of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the South Sudan Ministry of Health, Directorate of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research (37). Written informed consent/assent was obtained from participants and/or guardians of participants.

Study design.In Bangladesh, inclusion criteria were patients at least 2 months of age presenting with acute (<7 days) diarrhea (>3 loose stools in the prior 24 h) without clinical complications. Sample collection occurred from September to December 2015 at the district hospital and a subdistrict hospital in the remote northern district of Netrokona, which is prone to seasonal cholera outbreaks. In South Sudan, inclusion criteria were patients presenting at a cholera treatment center in Juba who were at least 6 months old and had diarrhea (>3 loose stools in the prior 24 h). Samples were collected from August to September 2015. There was no history of cholera vaccination at the Bangladesh and South Sudan sites.

Laboratory procedures.For samples collected in Bangladesh, the methods have been previously described (27). In brief, the first stool sample voided was collected immediately after admission to avoid exposure to hospital-administered antibiotics. The supernatants from V. cholerae-positive stools were tested for antibiotic exposure using a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) protocol for a 1100 series high-performance liquid chromatograph (Agilent Technologies) integrated with an LTQ XL ion trap mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) (27). The stool samples were tested by a dipstick RDT (Crystal VC, Span Diagnostics) after enrichment in APW for 6 h or overnight (36). The first and last samples collected per day were stored in Cary-Blair medium (4°C) for culture at a central reference laboratory in Dhaka (icddr,b); samples were stored for up to 1 month. Aliquots (500 μl) from all patients were stored in 1.3 ml RNAlater (Invitrogen).

For Bangladesh samples, stools suspended in RNAlater were centrifuged to obtain pellets for DNA extraction using the MoBio Power Soil 96-well plate system (Qiagen; formerly PowerSoil). DNA extracts were screened in technical replicates for V. cholerae by qPCR in a 384-well LightCycler (Roche) using tcpAset1 primers (see Table S1 in the supplemental material) (27). Samples that had threshold cycle (CT) values of less than 25 were defined as positive. Samples with CT values from 25 to 31 were evaluated for the second target of ompW by PCR and gel electrophoresis, given that this CT value range is vulnerable to false positives and negatives (8). In parallel, nl-qPCR was performed in technical replicates with tcpAset1 primers and additional targets (27, 28). SYBR Green master mix (Sigma-Aldrich) was used for both qPCR and nl-qPCR; however, there was 1.8-fold more DNA in nl-qPCRs. Cycle threshold values for positivity for qPCR and nl-qPCR were 29 and 28, respectively. 16S rRNA gene analysis utilized previously published methods and data (27) on nl-qPCR V. cholerae-positive samples for tcpA (Table S1). Lytic vibriophages ICP1, ICP2, and ICP3 were detected by PCR (Table S1). For samples collected in South Sudan, analyses for V. cholerae have been previously described on DNA extracted from dried stool spots (37). In addition, the extracts were analyzed by PCR for ICP1 and ICP3 (ICP2 PCR technically failed; Table S1).

Direct immunofluorescence was performed as previously described on planktonic cells from RNAlater-preserved stool samples (38). The planktonic cell fraction was obtained by a 15-s centrifugation at 100 × g to remove sediment from 500 μl of sample followed by one phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) wash, pelleting the supernatant fraction, and resuspension of the pellet in 500 μl of PBS with 3.7% formalin. Mock positive-control stool samples were used for molecular and microscopy assays that consisted of V. cholerae set to concentrations relative to cholera stool (5e8 CFU/ml and 1e8 CFU/ml) in 500 ml normal saline plus 1.3 ml RNAlater (ratio used in stool storage).

Statistical analysis.Latent class modeling was used to estimate sensitivities and specificities of each diagnostic (39). For prior information, the assumptions for sensitivities were the same for RDT, qPCR, nl-qPCR, and culture (50 to 100%). Assumptions for specificities were 50 to 100% for RDT, 90 to 100% for qPCR and nl-qPCR, and 99 to 100% for culture (24). Gibbs sampling with 100,000 iterations was used to generate posterior estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate associations between diagnostic type and detection of lytic bacteriophage/azithromycin. Both sample odds ratios (OR) and estimated sample odds ratios with a conditional maximum likelihood estimate were computed. A two-sample Wilcoxon test was used to compare CT values between diagnostic positive and negative samples among samples positive for V. cholerae by nl-qPCR CT. Comparison of microbiota (16S rRNA gene analysis) by diagnostic result and exposure among nl-qPCR-positive samples was conducted by permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) as previously described (27). Missingness in the data set is designated NA and is restricted to laboratory results. Statistical analyses were completed in GraphPad Prism 8.0.1 and R v3.4.1/RStudio v1.1.0153 (40).

Data availability.Data analyzed in the manuscript are available in the online supplemental material.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity estimates by latent class modeling.In Bangladesh, stool samples were collected from 881 of 961 enrolled patients. Among samples tested by RDT, qPCR, and nl-qPCR, the distribution of diagnostic positivity is provided (Fig. 1A and B). The sensitivities and specificities of each diagnostic were estimated using a Bayesian latent class modeling framework, which enables estimation of diagnostic accuracy in the absence of a perfect reference standard by integrating data from multiple tests (39). Estimates for sensitivity of RDT, qPCR, and nl-qPCR were 31.5% (95% CI, 21.5 to 43.7), 64.1% (95% CI, 50.7 to 80.2), and 97.6% (95% CI, 89.0 to 100.0), respectively. The specificities were 99.6% (95% CI, 99.0 to 99.9), 99.9% (95% CI, 99.7 to 100.0), and 99.6% (95% CI, 98.3 to 100.0), respectively. Among the subset of samples randomly chosen for culture (16 positive out of 251), sensitivity was 57.1% (40.4 to 73.2) and specificity was 99.7 (99.3 to 99.9). Based on these results, nl-qPCR was selected as the best available reference standard for subsequent analysis. The receiver operator curve (ROC) is presented (Fig. 1C).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Diagnostic comparison of Bangladesh stool samples identified as positive for V. cholerae by at least one modality (RDT, qPCR, and nl-qPCR; N = 78). (A) Venn diagram of diagnostic positivity for qPCR, nl-qPCR, and RDT; area within each circle is relative to the degree of positivity. (B) Comparison CT values between qPCR and nl-qPCR analysis with ICP1 and ICP2 metadata; horizontal and vertical dotted lines depict thresholds of positivity for each test. ND, not detected. (C) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Estimates of the sensitivity and 1-specificity of combining diagnostics are defined in the key, and vertical bars from each symbol depict the 95% CI; these data are available in tabular format in Table S4.

Impact of lytic phage on diagnostic positivity.Among V. cholerae-positive samples by nl-qPCR in Bangladesh, 19.2% (15/78) and 1.3% (1/78) were positive for ICP1 and ICP2, respectively; ICP3 was not detected. Of 180 random samples negative by nl-qPCR, qPCR, and RDT, two patients had ICP1 (one was culture positive) and one had ICP2. Among V. cholerae-positive samples by nl-qPCR that lacked azithromycin, vibriophages (ICP1 and ICP2) were negatively associated with diagnostic positivity by RDT (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.87), qPCR (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.65), and direct immunofluorescence microscopy (38) (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 1.031; Table 1). Frequencies of vibriophage detection were different between study sites (Fischer’s exact test; P = 0.033).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Lytic phage negatively impact diagnostic positivity (azithromycin excluded)

Diarrheal samples from South Sudan were analyzed to increase generalizability (37). ICP1 was detected in 10.2% of enriched samples (n = 10/98) independent of V. cholerae detection by PCR. Among samples positive for V. cholerae by PCR, ICP1 was detected in 24% of samples (n = 7/29; see Table S2 in the supplemental material). Among samples negative for V. cholerae by PCR, ICP1 was detected in 4.3% of samples (n = 3/69); two samples were RDT negative, and one was weakly RDT positive. ICP1 was negatively associated with RDT positivity after enrichment (OR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.64, P = 0.010; Table S2); a statistically significant difference was not observed for unenriched samples. ICP3 was not identified. There were insufficient samples with bacteriophage detected to assess bacteriophage impact on culture positivity.

Impact of azithromycin on diagnostic positivity.Among Bangladesh samples positive by nl-qPCR but negative for bacteriophage, azithromycin was negatively associated with diagnostic positivity by RDT (OR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.28) and qPCR (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.44) but not by direct fluorescence microscopy (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.97) (Table 2). Azithromycin was negatively associated with culture positivity (OR, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.997) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2

Azithromycin negatively impacts diagnostic positivity (phage excluded)

Absolute and relative V. cholerae concentration.Absolute and relative V. cholerae concentration was assessed by nl-qPCR and 16S rRNA gene analysis, respectively. Among nl-qPCR-positive samples, there was a significant inverse relationship between diagnostic positivity and V. cholerae concentration (Table S3). With no exclusions, fold differences between positive and negative samples ranged from 21-fold (culture) to 79-fold (qPCR). The one exception was that phage exposure (azithromycin samples excluded) did not associate with a significant difference in the nl-qPCR CT values between culture-positive (n = 13; CT , 19.4; 95% CI, 14.3 to 22.0) and -negative samples (n = 9; CT, 20.8; 95% CI, 17.6 to 25.9; P = 0.186). Statistically significant differences in microbiota (16S rRNA gene) were observed between RDT-positive and -negative stools with stratifications for bacteriophage (Fig. S2A) and azithromycin (Fig. S2B).

DISCUSSION

This study investigated the potential vulnerability diagnostics have when bacterial targets are exposed to lytic bacteriophage predation or antibiotics. Using cholera as a model system and nl-qPCR as a reference standard for V. cholerae, we found that the odds of an RDT, qPCR, and microscopy diagnostic testing positive were reduced by more than 83% when lytic bacteriophage were present. Similarly, the odds of an RDT, qPCR, and culture testing positive were reduced by more than 89% when the first-line antibiotic azithromycin was detected in stool by mass spectrometry. These results expose a vulnerability of gold-standard diagnostics that clinicians and scientists have feared but lacked sufficient data to take evidence-based action.

We reason that the low inflection point in the ROC at approximately 0.7 sensitivity is multifactorial (Fig. 1C). We explored the effect on sensitivity and specificity of adding ICP1 detection as a proxy for V. cholerae detection (Fig. 1C; see also Table S4 in the supplemental material). qPCR, culture, and RDT results moderately improved. The effects of lytic bacteriophage, antibiotics, and host antimicrobial factors on diagnostic positivity are likely additive, especially given that these diagnostics target different biologic mechanisms. How duration of illness and severity of disease serve as determinants of diagnostic positivity remain unknown. Time-series analyses of cholera patients with lytic bacteriophage coinfection and defined antimicrobial administration are needed to further these lines of inquiry. These studies would be strengthened by enrollment of household contacts and healthy neighbor households, as well as testing their water sources, to collectively determine rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic V. cholerae infection and for detection of vibriophage inside and outside the human host.

These findings should be viewed within the context of the limitations of the study. The procedures were chosen for feasibility at remote field sites. The remote locations delayed transport and culture up to 1 month, which can be detrimental to culture efficiency (41) and precluded plaque assays by soft-agar overlay with V. cholerae exposed to filtered stool supernatant. The higher detection rate of nl-qPCR than that of qPCR was multifactorial, including the 1.8-fold difference in DNA. The positive nl-qPCR samples that were negative by qPCR and negative by ompW were unlikely to be false positives, because Vibrio spp. were detected by 16S rRNA gene analysis in all samples that did not have lytic vibriophage (n = 13/13); those samples with vibriophage had DNA of insufficient quality and/or quantity to yield a 16S rRNA gene result (n = 7/7). Among nl-qPCR-positive and qPCR-negative samples, PCR detection for tpcA correlated with PCR detection of ctxA (cholera toxin; n = 5/5; Table S1). These data, paired with serologic results that found only O1 V. cholerae, make the possibility of confounding from non-O1 V. cholerae unlikely. Despite these limitations, the discovery that lytic bacteriophage negatively impacts diagnostics by 5- to 10-fold, even to the point that samples will test positive for bacteriophage and negative for the pathogen, has broad significance. One explanation is lytic bacteriophage and antibiotics inhibit bacterial growth below the diagnostic limits of detection. Alternatively, bacteriophage nucleases, or host nucleases responding to bacteriophage infection, may differentially digest host chromosomal DNA to the point that PCR fails (42, 43).

Conclusions.Within the cholera field, this study suggests that an updated approach is needed to estimate cholera burden, especially in the latter phases of outbreaks when rates of concurrent lytic bacteriophage predation are likely higher (19, 20). This may require an approach that includes lytic bacteriophage detection as a proxy for pathogen detection and a deemphasis on diagnostic results with known antibiotic exposure. Outside the cholera field, these data serve as a call to action to survey for lytic bacteriophage when bacterial diagnostics have inconsistent performance. These efforts may justify a new line of diagnostic development that targets both the prey (pathogen) and predator (bacteriophage) and scientific inquiry into the underlying mechanisms of action and spatial/temporal relationship of lytic bacteriophage and their host pathogen.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the patients for participating in this study, the field and central project staff, and the diligent clinical team who made this study possible. We are grateful to M. Barry, S. Luby, and Y. Maldonado for their support at Stanford University, as well as G. Morris, A. Ali, M. Alam, E. Schmidt, R. Autrey, K. Berquist, and S. Rivkees at the University of Florida for their support, reagents, and helpful discussions.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (DP5OD019893 to E.J.N., R01AI123422 to D.A.S. and A.K.D) and internal support from the University of Florida and the Stanford University Center for Innovation in Global Health, Translational and Applied Medicine program, and the Child Health Research Institute. D.L.C. was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through their active support of the Institute for Disease Modeling (Bellevue, WA) and sponsorship through the Global Good Fund.

These funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

We have no conflicts of interest to report.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 10 March 2020.
    • Returned for modification 21 April 2020.
    • Accepted 25 June 2020.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 1 July 2020.
  • Supplemental material is available online only.

  • Copyright © 2020 Nelson et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    GBD 2016 Diarrhoeal Disease Collaborators. 2018. Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of diarrhoea in 195 countries: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Infect Dis 18:1211–1228. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30362-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ali M,
    2. Nelson AR,
    3. Lopez AL,
    4. Sack DA
    . 2015. Updated global burden of cholera in endemic countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9:e0003832. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003832.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Nelson EJ,
    2. Harris JB,
    3. Morris JG, Jr,
    4. Calderwood SB,
    5. Camilli A
    . 2009. Cholera transmission: the host, pathogen and bacteriophage dynamic. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:693–702. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. D’Herelle F,
    2. Malone R
    . 1927. A preliminary report of work carried out by the cholera bacteriophage enquiry. Ind Med Gaz 62:614–617.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kaper JB,
    2. Morris JG, Jr,
    3. Levine MM
    . 1995. Cholera. Clin Microbiol Rev 8:48–86. doi:10.1128/CMR.8.1.48.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Musekiwa A,
    2. Volmink J
    . 2011. Oral rehydration salt solution for treating cholera: ≤270 mOsm/L solutions vs ≥310 mOsm/L solutions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD003754. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003754.pub3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Leibovici-Weissman Y,
    2. Neuberger A,
    3. Bitterman R,
    4. Sinclair D,
    5. Salam MA,
    6. Paul M
    . 2014. Antimicrobial drugs for treating cholera. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD008625. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008625.pub2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Nelson EJ,
    2. Nelson DS,
    3. Salam MA,
    4. Sack DA
    . 2011. Antibiotics for both moderate and severe cholera. N Engl J Med 364:5–7. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1013771.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Arifuzzaman M,
    2. Ahmed T,
    3. Rahman MA,
    4. Chowdhury F,
    5. Rashu R,
    6. Khan AI,
    7. LaRocque RC,
    8. Harris JB,
    9. Bhuiyan TR,
    10. Ryan ET,
    11. Calderwood SB,
    12. Qadri F
    . 2011. Individuals with Le(a+b-) blood group have increased susceptibility to symptomatic Vibrio cholerae O1 infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 5:e1413. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001413.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Merrell DS,
    2. Butler SM,
    3. Qadri F,
    4. Dolganov NA,
    5. Alam A,
    6. Cohen MB,
    7. Calderwood SB,
    8. Schoolnik GK,
    9. Camilli A
    . 2002. Host-induced epidemic spread of the cholera bacterium. Nature 417:642–645. doi:10.1038/nature00778.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nelson EJ,
    2. Chowdhury A,
    3. Flynn J,
    4. Schild S,
    5. Bourassa L,
    6. Shao Y,
    7. LaRocque RC,
    8. Calderwood SB,
    9. Qadri F,
    10. Camilli A
    . 2008. Transmission of Vibrio cholerae is antagonized by lytic phage and entry into the aquatic environment. PLoS Pathog 4:e1000187. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000187.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hartley DM,
    2. Morris JG, Jr,
    3. Smith DL
    . 2006. Hyperinfectivity: a critical element in the ability of V. cholerae to cause epidemics? PLoS Med 3:e7. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Seed KD,
    2. Yen M,
    3. Shapiro BJ,
    4. Hilaire IJ,
    5. Charles RC,
    6. Teng JE,
    7. Ivers LC,
    8. Boncy J,
    9. Harris JB,
    10. Camilli A
    . 2014. Evolutionary consequences of intra-patient phage predation on microbial populations. Elife 3:e03497. doi:10.7554/eLife.03497.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Seed KD,
    2. Bodi KL,
    3. Kropinski AM,
    4. Ackermann HW,
    5. Calderwood SB,
    6. Qadri F,
    7. Camilli A
    . 2011. Evidence of a dominant lineage of Vibrio cholerae-specific lytic bacteriophages shed by cholera patients over a 10-year period in Dhaka, Bangladesh. mBio 2:e00334-10. doi:10.1128/mBio.00334-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Seed KD,
    2. Faruque SM,
    3. Mekalanos JJ,
    4. Calderwood SB,
    5. Qadri F,
    6. Camilli A
    . 2012. Phase variable O antigen biosynthetic genes control expression of the major protective antigen and bacteriophage receptor in Vibrio cholerae O1. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002917. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002917.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Yen M,
    2. Camilli A
    . 2017. Mechanisms of the evolutionary arms race between Vibrio cholerae and Vibriophage clinical isolates. Int Microbiol 20:116–120. doi:10.2436/20.1501.01.292.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Yen M,
    2. Cairns LS,
    3. Camilli A
    . 2017. A cocktail of three virulent bacteriophages prevents Vibrio cholerae infection in animal models. Nat Commun 8:14187. doi:10.1038/ncomms14187.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Jensen MA,
    2. Faruque SM,
    3. Mekalanos JJ,
    4. Levin BR
    . 2006. Modeling the role of bacteriophage in the control of cholera outbreaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:4652–4657. doi:10.1073/pnas.0600166103.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Faruque SM,
    2. Naser IB,
    3. Islam MJ,
    4. Faruque AS,
    5. Ghosh AN,
    6. Nair GB,
    7. Sack DA,
    8. Mekalanos JJ
    . 2005. Seasonal epidemics of cholera inversely correlate with the prevalence of environmental cholera phages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:1702–1707. doi:10.1073/pnas.0408992102.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Faruque SM,
    2. Islam MJ,
    3. Ahmad QS,
    4. Faruque AS,
    5. Sack DA,
    6. Nair GB,
    7. Mekalanos JJ
    . 2005. Self-limiting nature of seasonal cholera epidemics: role of host-mediated amplification of phage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6119–6124. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502069102.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. King AA,
    2. Ionides EL,
    3. Pascual M,
    4. Bouma MJ
    . 2008. Inapparent infections and cholera dynamics. Nature 454:877–880. doi:10.1038/nature07084.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pasricha CL,
    2. Monte AJ,
    3. Gupta SK
    . 1931. Season variations of cholera bacteriophage in natural waters and in man in Calcutta during the year 1930. Indian Med Gaz 66:543–550.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Silva-Valenzuela CA,
    2. Camilli A
    . 2019. Niche adaptation limits bacteriophage predation of Vibrio cholerae in a nutrient-poor aquatic environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:1627–1632. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810138116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Page AL,
    2. Alberti KP,
    3. Mondonge V,
    4. Rauzier J,
    5. Quilici ML,
    6. Guerin PJ
    . 2012. Evaluation of a rapid test for the diagnosis of cholera in the absence of a gold standard. PLoS One 7:e37360. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037360.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Dick MH,
    2. Guillerm M,
    3. Moussy F,
    4. Chaignat CL
    . 2012. Review of two decades of cholera diagnostics–how far have we really come? PLoS Negl Trop Dis 6:e1845. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001845.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Hasan JA,
    2. Bernstein D,
    3. Huq A,
    4. Loomis L,
    5. Tamplin ML,
    6. Colwell RR
    . 1994. Cholera DFA: an improved direct fluorescent monoclonal antibody staining kit for rapid detection and enumeration of Vibrio cholerae O1. FEMS Microbiol Lett 120:143–148. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.1994.tb07021.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Alexandrova L,
    2. Haque F,
    3. Rodriguez P,
    4. Marrazzo AC,
    5. Grembi JA,
    6. Ramachandran V,
    7. Hryckowian AJ,
    8. Adams CM,
    9. Siddique MSA,
    10. Khan AI,
    11. Qadri F,
    12. Andrews JR,
    13. Rahman M,
    14. Spormann AM,
    15. Schoolnik GK,
    16. Chien A,
    17. Nelson EJ
    . 2019. Identification of widespread antibiotic exposure in cholera patients correlates with clinically relevant microbiota changes. J Infect Dis 220:1655–1666. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiz299.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Grembi JA,
    2. Mayer-Blackwell K,
    3. Luby SP,
    4. Spormann AM
    . 15 July 2020. High-throughput multiparallel enteropathogen detection via nano-liter qPCR. Front Cell Infect Microbiol doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00351.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Sayeed MA,
    2. Islam K,
    3. Hossain M,
    4. Akter NJ,
    5. Alam MN,
    6. Sultana N,
    7. Khanam F,
    8. Kelly M,
    9. Charles RC,
    10. Kovac P,
    11. Xu P,
    12. Andrews JR,
    13. Calderwood SB,
    14. Amin J,
    15. Ryan ET,
    16. Qadri F
    . 2018. Development of a new dipstick (Cholkit) for rapid detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 in acute watery diarrheal stools. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 12:e0006286. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006286.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    1. Debes AK,
    2. Ateudjieu J,
    3. Guenou E,
    4. Ebile W,
    5. Sonkoua IT,
    6. Njimbia AC,
    7. Steinwald P,
    8. Ram M,
    9. Sack DA
    . 2016. Clinical and environmental surveillance for Vibrio cholerae in resource constrained areas: application during a 1-year surveillance in the far north region of Cameroon. Am J Trop Med Hyg 94:537–543. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.15-0496.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. George CM,
    2. Rashid MU,
    3. Sack DA,
    4. Bradley Sack R,
    5. Saif-Ur-Rahman KM,
    6. Azman AS,
    7. Monira S,
    8. Bhuyian SI,
    9. Zillur Rahman KM,
    10. Toslim Mahmud M,
    11. Mustafiz M,
    12. Alam M
    . 2014. Evaluation of enrichment method for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 using a rapid dipstick test in Bangladesh. Trop Med Int Health 19:301–307. doi:10.1111/tmi.12252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ley B,
    2. Khatib AM,
    3. Thriemer K,
    4. von Seidlein L,
    5. Deen J,
    6. Mukhopadyay A,
    7. Chang NY,
    8. Hashim R,
    9. Schmied W,
    10. Busch CJ,
    11. Reyburn R,
    12. Wierzba T,
    13. Clemens JD,
    14. Wilfing H,
    15. Enwere G,
    16. Aguado T,
    17. Jiddawi MS,
    18. Sack D,
    19. Ali SM
    . 2012. Evaluation of a rapid dipstick (Crystal VC) for the diagnosis of cholera in Zanzibar and a comparison with previous studies. PLoS One 7:e36930. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036930.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Alam M,
    2. Hasan NA,
    3. Sultana M,
    4. Nair GB,
    5. Sadique A,
    6. Faruque AS,
    7. Endtz HP,
    8. Sack RB,
    9. Huq A,
    10. Colwell RR,
    11. Izumiya H,
    12. Morita M,
    13. Watanabe H,
    14. Cravioto A
    . 2010. Diagnostic limitations to accurate diagnosis of cholera. J Clin Microbiol 48:3918–3922. doi:10.1128/JCM.00616-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Tuteja U,
    2. Kumar S,
    3. Shukla J,
    4. Kingston J,
    5. Batra HV
    . 2007. Simultaneous direct detection of toxigenic and non-toxigenic Vibrio cholerae from rectal swabs and environmental samples by sandwich ELISA. J Med Microbiol 56:1340–1345. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.47166-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Cohen JF,
    2. Bertille N,
    3. Cohen R,
    4. Chalumeau M
    . 2016. Rapid antigen detection test for group A streptococcus in children with pharyngitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016:CD010502. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010502.pub2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Haque F,
    2. Ball RL,
    3. Khatun S,
    4. Ahmed M,
    5. Kache S,
    6. Chisti MJ,
    7. Sarker SA,
    8. Maples SD,
    9. Pieri D,
    10. Vardhan Korrapati T,
    11. Sarnquist C,
    12. Federspiel N,
    13. Rahman MW,
    14. Andrews JR,
    15. Rahman M,
    16. Nelson EJ
    . 2017. Evaluation of a smartphone decision-support tool for diarrheal disease management in a resource-limited setting. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11:e0005290. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005290.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    1. Ontweka LN,
    2. Deng LO,
    3. Rauzier J,
    4. Debes AK,
    5. Tadesse F,
    6. Parker LA,
    7. Wamala JF,
    8. Bior BK,
    9. Lasuba M,
    10. But AB,
    11. Grandesso F,
    12. Jamet C,
    13. Cohuet S,
    14. Ciglenecki I,
    15. Serafini M,
    16. Sack DA,
    17. Quilici ML,
    18. Azman AS,
    19. Luquero FJ,
    20. Page AL
    . 2016. Cholera rapid test with enrichment step has diagnostic performance equivalent to culture. PLoS One 11:e0168257. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168257.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Nelson EJ,
    2. Chowdhury A,
    3. Harris JB,
    4. Begum YA,
    5. Chowdhury F,
    6. Khan AI,
    7. Larocque RC,
    8. Bishop AL,
    9. Ryan ET,
    10. Camilli A,
    11. Qadri F,
    12. Calderwood SB
    . 2007. Complexity of rice-water stool from patients with Vibrio cholerae plays a role in the transmission of infectious diarrhea. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:19091–19096. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706352104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Islam K,
    2. Sayeed MA,
    3. Hossen E,
    4. Khanam F,
    5. Charles RC,
    6. Andrews J,
    7. Ryan ET,
    8. Qadri F
    . 2016. Comparison of the performance of the TPTest, Tubex, Typhidot and Widal immunodiagnostic assays and blood cultures in detecting patients with typhoid fever in Bangladesh, including using a Bayesian latent class modeling approach. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10:e0004558. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004558.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 26 May 2019.
  41. 41.↵
    1. Martinez RM,
    2. Megli CJ,
    3. Taylor RK
    . 2010. Growth and laboratory maintenance of Vibrio cholerae. Curr Protoc Microbiol Chapter 6:Unit 6A.1. doi:10.1002/9780471729259.mc06a01s17.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. McKitterick AC,
    2. Hays SG,
    3. Johura FT,
    4. Alam M,
    5. Seed KD
    . 2019. Viral satellites exploit phage proteins to escape degradation of the bacterial host chromosome. Cell Host Microbe 26:504–514. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2019.09.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    1. Warner HR,
    2. Snustad P,
    3. Jorgensen SE,
    4. Koerner JF
    . 1970. Isolation of bacteriophage T4 mutants defective in the ability to degrade host deoxyribonucleic acid. J Virol 5:700–708. doi:10.1128/JVI.5.6.700-708.1970.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Khan AI,
    2. Mack JA,
    3. Salimuzzaman M,
    4. Zion MI,
    5. Sujon H,
    6. Ball RL,
    7. Maples S,
    8. Rashid MM,
    9. Chisti MJ,
    10. Sarker SA,
    11. Biswas D,
    12. Hossin R,
    13. Bardosh KL,
    14. Begum YA,
    15. Ahmed A,
    16. Pieri D,
    17. Haque F,
    18. Rahman M,
    19. Levine AC,
    20. Qadri F,
    21. Flora MS,
    22. Gurka MJ,
    23. Nelson EJ
    . 2020. Electronic decision support and diarrhoeal disease guideline adherence (mHDM): a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health 2:e250–e258. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30062-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Gold Standard Cholera Diagnostics Are Tarnished by Lytic Bacteriophage and Antibiotics
E. J. Nelson, J. A. Grembi, D. L. Chao, J. R. Andrews, L. Alexandrova, P. H. Rodriguez, V. V. Ramachandran, M. A. Sayeed, J. F. Wamala, A. K. Debes, D. A. Sack, A. J. Hryckowian, F. Haque, S. Khatun, M. Rahman, A. Chien, A. M. Spormann, G. K. Schoolnik
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Aug 2020, 58 (9) e00412-20; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00412-20

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.
Gold Standard Cholera Diagnostics Are Tarnished by Lytic Bacteriophage and Antibiotics
(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
Gold Standard Cholera Diagnostics Are Tarnished by Lytic Bacteriophage and Antibiotics
E. J. Nelson, J. A. Grembi, D. L. Chao, J. R. Andrews, L. Alexandrova, P. H. Rodriguez, V. V. Ramachandran, M. A. Sayeed, J. F. Wamala, A. K. Debes, D. A. Sack, A. J. Hryckowian, F. Haque, S. Khatun, M. Rahman, A. Chien, A. M. Spormann, G. K. Schoolnik
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Aug 2020, 58 (9) e00412-20; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00412-20
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

KEYWORDS

ICP1
ICP2
ICP3
RDT
bacteriophage
Cholera
cholerae
outbreak
Vibrio
vibriophage

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