Laboratory Detection of Clostridium difficile in Piglets in Australia

被引:22
|
作者
Knight, Daniel R. [1 ]
Squire, Michele M. [1 ]
Riley, Thomas V. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Queen Elizabeth II Med Ctr, Sch Pathol & Lab Med, Nedlands, WA, Australia
[2] Queen Elizabeth II Med Ctr, PathWest Lab Med, Dept Microbiol, Nedlands, WA, Australia
关键词
NEONATAL SWINE; TOXIN-A; ENZYME IMMUNOASSAYS; DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS; INFECTION; IDENTIFICATION; PREVALENCE; STRAINS; FECES; AGAR;
D O I
10.1128/JCM.01225-14
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Clostridium difficile is a well-known enteric pathogen of humans and the causative agent of high-morbidity enteritis in piglets aged 1 to 7 days. C. difficile prevalence in Australian piglets is as high as 70%. The current diagnostic assays have been validated only for human infections, and there are no published studies assessing their performance in Australian piglets. We evaluated the suitability of five assays for detecting C. difficile in 157 specimens of piglet feces. The assays included a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LMIA)-PCR for tcdA (illumigene C. difficile; Meridian), a real-time PCR for tcdB (GeneOhm Cdiff; Becton Dickinson), two-component enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for C. difficile glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) (EIA-GDH) and TcdA/TcdB (EIA-TcdA/TcdB) (C. diff Quik Chek; Alere), and direct culture (DC) (C. difficile chromID agar; bioMerieux). The assays for detection of the organism were compared against enrichment culture (EC), and assays for detection of toxins/toxin genes were compared against EC followed by PCR for toxin genes (toxigenic EC [TEC]). The recovery of C. difficile by EC was 39.5% (n = 62/157), and TEC revealed that 58.1% (n = 36/62) of isolates were positive for at least one toxin gene (tcdA/tcdB). Compared with those for EC/TEC, the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were, respectively, as follows: DC, 91.9, 100.0, 100.0, and 95.0%; EIA-GDH, 41.9, 92.6, 78.8, and 71.0%; EIA-TcdA/TcdB, 5.6, 99.2, 66.7, and 77.9%; real-time PCR, 42.9, 96.7, 78.9, and 85.4% and LMIA-PCR, 25.0, 95.9, 64.3, and 81.1%. The performance of the molecular methods was poor, suggesting that the current commercially available assays for diagnosis of C. difficile in humans are not suitable for use in piglets. C. difficile recovery by the DC provides a cost-effective alternative.
引用
收藏
页码:3856 / 3862
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Archival PCR-based diagnosis of Clostridium difficile in piglets
    Jung, K
    Ha, SK
    Chung, HK
    Kim, J
    Cho, WS
    Choi, C
    Chae, C
    VETERINARY RECORD, 2003, 153 (15) : 466 - 467
  • [32] An outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in piglets in Brazil
    Silveira Silva, Rodrigo Otavio
    Oliveira Junior, Carlos Augusto
    Reis Costa, Adrienny Trindade
    Diniz, Amanda Nadia
    Neves, Monique da Silva
    Faria Lobato, Francisco Carlos
    SEMINA-CIENCIAS AGRARIAS, 2013, 34 (06): : 3923 - 3928
  • [33] Presence of Clostridium difficile in 11 piglets with suspected CDI in the Netherlands
    Keessen, E. C.
    Leengoed, L. A. M. G.
    Bakker, D.
    van den Brink, K. M. J. A.
    Kuijper, E. J.
    Lipman, L. J. A.
    TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR DIERGENEESKUNDE, 2010, 135 (04) : 134 - 137
  • [34] CLINICAL AND LABORATORY OBSERVATIONS IN CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE COLITIS
    BARTLETT, JG
    TAYLOR, NS
    CHANG, TW
    DZINK, JA
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 1980, 33 (11): : 2521 - 2526
  • [35] The pitfalls of laboratory diagnostics of Clostridium difficile infection
    Krutova, M.
    Wilcox, M. H.
    Kuijper, E. J.
    CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2018, 24 (07) : 682 - 683
  • [36] Optimizing the Laboratory Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile Infection
    Gilligan, Peter H.
    CLINICS IN LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2015, 35 (02) : 299 - +
  • [37] Nonutility of Repeat Laboratory Testing for Detection of Clostridium difficile by Use of PCR or Enzyme Immunoassay
    Aichinger, Elisabeth
    Schleck, Cathy D.
    Harmsen, William S.
    Nyre, Lisa M.
    Patel, Robin
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2008, 46 (11) : 3795 - 3797
  • [38] Discrepancies among three laboratory methods for Clostridium difficile detection and a proposal for their optimal use
    Monteiro, Alexandre A.
    Pires, Renata N.
    Baethgen, Ludmila F.
    Carneiro, Lilian C.
    Tavares, Rejane G.
    Caierao, Juliana
    Park, Steven
    Perlin, David S.
    Rodrigues Filho, Edison M.
    Pasqualotto, Alessandro C.
    FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS, 2014, 350 (02) : 133 - 137
  • [39] A multi-laboratory comparison of two molecular methods for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile
    Halstead, Diane C.
    Abid, Joan
    Sloan, Lynne
    Meza, Diana
    Ramsey-Walker, Daphne
    Hata, D. Jane
    JOURNAL OF INFECTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 2016, 10 (01): : 62 - 67
  • [40] Comparison of two commercial molecular tests for the detection of Clostridium difficile in the routine diagnostic laboratory
    Zidaric, Valerija
    Kevorkijan, Bozena Kotnik
    Oresic, Nadja
    Janezic, Sandra
    Rupnik, Maja
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2011, 60 (08) : 1131 - 1136