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
  • [41] THE USE OF CIE FOR THE DETECTION OF CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE TOXIN IN STOOL FILTRATES - LABORATORY AND CLINICAL CORRELATION
    KURZYNSKI, TA
    CEMBROWSKI, GS
    KIMBALL, JL
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1983, 79 (03) : 370 - 374
  • [42] Laboratory surveillance of paediatric Clostridium difficile infections in healthcare and community settings in Australia, from 2013 to at present
    Perumalsamy, S.
    Hong, S.
    Knight, D.
    Riley, T.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2020, 101 : 438 - 438
  • [43] Comparison of Detection Methods for Clostridium difficile
    Ianosi-Irimie, Monica
    Morong, Dawn
    Dragoni, Catherine
    Schofield, Stanley
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2013, 51 (05) : 1648 - 1648
  • [44] Pathology Consultation on Detection of Clostridium difficile
    Svensson, Annika M.
    LaSala, P. Rocco
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2012, 137 (01) : 10 - 15
  • [45] Formula Feeding Predisposes Neonatal Piglets to Clostridium difficile Gut Infection
    Grzeskowiak, Lukasz
    Martinez-Vallespin, Beatriz
    Dadi, Temesgen H.
    Radloff, Judith
    Amasheh, Salah
    Heinsen, Femke-Anouska
    Franke, Andre
    Reinert, Knut
    Vahjen, Wilfried
    Zentek, Juergen
    Pieper, Robert
    JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2018, 217 (09): : 1442 - 1452
  • [46] More on clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in Australia
    Chen, F
    Chakera, A
    Seow, C
    Ling, K
    Plant, AJ
    Riley, TV
    ANAEROBE, 1999, 5 (3-4) : 205 - 207
  • [47] Three-centre evaluation of laboratory Clostridium difficile detection algorithms and the EntericBio® realtime C. difficile assay
    Lucey, B.
    Blake, L.
    Watson, M.
    McIlhagga, A.
    Quinn, N.
    Corcoran, G. D.
    Ratnaraja, N.
    Swindells, J.
    ANAEROBE, 2018, 49 : 53 - 57
  • [48] STUDIES IN GNOTOBIOTIC PIGLETS FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSTRIDIUM-DIFFICILE TOXIN
    POTTS, D
    BRAUN, M
    SCHAFFER, J
    MICROECOLOGY AND THERAPY, VOL 17, 1987, 17 : 55 - 55
  • [49] Evaluation of Four Different Diagnostic Tests To Detect Clostridium difficile in Piglets
    Keessen, E. C.
    Hopman, N. E. M.
    van Leengoed, L. A. M. G.
    van Asten, A. J. A. M.
    Hermanus, C.
    Kuijper, E. J.
    Lipman, L. J. A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2011, 49 (05) : 1816 - 1821
  • [50] Current knowledge on the laboratory diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection
    Martinez-Melendez, Adrian
    Camacho-Ortiz, Adrian
    Morfin-Otero, Rayo
    Maldonado-Garza, Hector Jesus
    Viiiarreai-Trevino, Licet
    Garza-Gonzaiez, Eivira
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2017, 23 (09) : 1552 - 1567