RESUMEN
Objective To compare the difference of simple-rapid identification method and automatic biochemical identification method in the identification of Escherichia coli .Methods The strains of Escherichia coli isolated from clinical samples were identi-fied by the simple-rapid method and automatic biochemical method .The consistency of result and the time of two methods were compared .Results Among 492 suspected strains ,248 strains were identified as Escherichia coli by simple-rapid method ,and other 244 strains were not .Meanwhile ,231 strains of these 248 Escherichia coli strains and 7 strains of 244 non Escherichia coli strains were identified as Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method .The positive and negative predictive value of simple-rapid method were 93 .1% (231/248) and 97 .1% (237/244) .2 .5-7 .0 h [average(4 .12 ± 1 .08) h] were used to identify Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method while0 .5-2 .0 h[average(1 .08 ± 0 .45) h] were used by simple-rapid method ,the difference was statistically significant(t= -40 .252 ,P<0 .001) .Conclusion The result of simple-rapid method is close to that of automatic bio-chemical identification method on Escherichia coli ,and simple-rapid method used less time .
RESUMEN
Objective To compare the difference of simple-rapid identification method and automatic biochemical identification method in the identification of Escherichia coli .Methods The strains of Escherichia coli isolated from clinical samples were identi-fied by the simple-rapid method and automatic biochemical method .The consistency of result and the time of two methods were compared .Results Among 492 suspected strains ,248 strains were identified as Escherichia coli by simple-rapid method ,and other 244 strains were not .Meanwhile ,231 strains of these 248 Escherichia coli strains and 7 strains of 244 non Escherichia coli strains were identified as Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method .The positive and negative predictive value of simple-rapid method were 93 .1% (231/248) and 97 .1% (237/244) .2 .5-7 .0 h [average(4 .12 ± 1 .08) h] were used to identify Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method while0 .5-2 .0 h[average(1 .08 ± 0 .45) h] were used by simple-rapid method ,the difference was statistically significant(t= -40 .252 ,P<0 .001) .Conclusion The result of simple-rapid method is close to that of automatic bio-chemical identification method on Escherichia coli ,and simple-rapid method used less time .
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To establish a evaluation method of microbial identification technology by comparing four different microbial identification methods. METHODS: A total of 50 tests by API microbial identification system, VITEK 2 compact system, Riboprinter system, and MicroSeq ID DNA sequencing system were performed against 19 standard strains and 10 wild strains. The accuracy and reproducibility of these methods were evaluated. RESULTS: All the four identification technologies could be used to identify specified micro-organisms, but they had difference in other strains. Molecular biotechnology was better than biochemical identification in accuracy and reproducibility. CONCLUSION: The users should establish suitable acceptance criteria for accuracy and reproducibility, taking into account method capability.
RESUMEN
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the major pathogen responsible for skin infection, urinary tract infection (UTI) and endocarditis in human. The study was performed to determine the prevalence of multidrug resistant S. aureus in human clinical sample and to evaluate their sensitivity to Allamanda cathartica L. leaf extract. A total of 12 isolates were identified belongs to S. aureus by perform-ing several physiological and biochemical tests. The isolates exhibited highest resistant (75%) to streptomycin and lowest (33.33%) against co-trimoxazole followed by disc diffusion assay of eight antibiotics tested. The other four antibiotics such as azithromycin, chloramphenicol, gentamycin and erythromycin exhibited 50 to 66.67% resistant to present isolates. Here we found that 75% of S. aureus isolates were multidrug-resistant (MDR). The crude leaf extract of A. cathartica L. found to possess antibacterial properties at the rate of 83.33% against S. aureus isolates with 12-22 mm zone of inhibition. Results of TLC states that Benzene : Ethyl acetate (1:1) solvent system was more effective for initial separation of compound from crude leaf extract resulted three distinct bands with different Rf values ranging from 0.53 to 0.89. The result of this study refers that A. cathartica L. leaf extract would be useful to develop effective drugs that would reduce the higher prevalence of multidrug resistance S. aureus causing clinical infection in human.
RESUMEN
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the major pathogen responsible for skin infection, urinary tract infection (UTI) and endocarditis in human. The study was performed to determine the prevalence of multidrug resistant S. aureus in human clinical sample and to evaluate their sensitivity to Allamanda cathartica L. leaf extract. A total of 12 isolates were identified belongs to S. aureus by perform-ing several physiological and biochemical tests. The isolates exhibited highest resistant (75%) to streptomycin and lowest (33.33%) against co-trimoxazole followed by disc diffusion assay of eight antibiotics tested. The other four antibiotics such as azithromycin, chloramphenicol, gentamycin and erythromycin exhibited 50 to 66.67% resistant to present isolates. Here we found that 75% of S. aureus isolates were multidrug-resistant (MDR). The crude leaf extract of A. cathartica L. found to possess antibacterial properties at the rate of 83.33% against S. aureus isolates with 12-22 mm zone of inhibition. Results of TLC states that Benzene : Ethyl acetate (1:1) solvent system was more effective for initial separation of compound from crude leaf extract resulted three distinct bands with different Rf values ranging from 0.53 to 0.89. The result of this study refers that A. cathartica L. leaf extract would be useful to develop effective drugs that would reduce the higher prevalence of multidrug resistance S. aureus causing clinical infection in human.
RESUMEN
Avian salmonellosis is an important disease causing serious impediment to the development of poultry industry especially in developing countries of Asia and Africa. Since no “effective”immunoprophylactic measures are available for the disease till date, strict biosecurity is the only alternative to preclude the disease. For formulating the control measures, an understanding of the epidemiology of the disease, proper diagnosis and identification of the causative agent is quintessential. This report sheds light on three different outbreaks of salmonellosis in three different farms in Kerala (India) describing the disease diagnosis, antibiotic resistance and the suggested control measures. All the three isolates were revealed to be Salmonella gallinarum and were resistant to at least three of the antimicrobial agents tested.
RESUMEN
Lactobacilos foram isolados do inglúvio e cecos de reprodutoras pesadas e caracterizados como Gram-positivo, catalase negativo, produtores de gás em glicose e não produtores de H2S em triple sugar iron e pela fermentação de carboidratos. Utilizaram-se os iniciadores: Lac 1/23-10C para detecção de Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. crispatus, L. amylovorus, L. gasseri, L. helveticus e L. jensenii; Lac 2/LU-1' para L. acidophilus; Fer 3/Fer 4 para L. fermentum; Reu 1/Reu 2 para L. reuteri e Sal 1 e Sal 2 para L. salivarius. L. reuteri e L. salivarius foram identificados pela reação em cadeia de polimerase (PCR) e pelo teste bioquímico, enquanto L. acidophilus, L. fermentum e Lactobacillus sp. somente pelo teste bioquímico. Os resultados obtidos na PCR foram mais precisos quando comparados aos obtidos com o método bioquímico, que demonstrou ser subjetivo devido às variações na fermentação de carboidratos, principalmente na diferenciação entre L. fermentum e L. reuteri.
Lactobacilli were isolated from crops and ceca of broiler breeders and characterized by positive Gram staining, negative catalase test, production of gas from glucose, and negative for H2S production from triple sugar iron, and carbohydrates fermentation. Primers: Lac1/23-10C for detecting Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. crispatus, L. amylovorus, L. gasseri, L. helveticus, and L. jensenii; Lac2/LU-1' for L. acidophilus; Fer3/Fer4 for L. fermentum; Reu1/Reu2 for L. reuteri, and Sal1/Sal2 for L. salivarius were used. L. reuteri and L. salivarius were identified by both polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and biochemical tests. However, L. acidophilus, L. fermentum, and Lactobacillus sp. were only identified by biochemical tests. PCR results were more precise, considering the variability of carbohydrate fermentation among the strains, especially for identifying L. fermentum and L. reuteri.