4.4 Article

Combined Molecular Gram Typing and High-Resolution Melting Analysis for Rapid Identification of a Syndromic Panel of Bacteria Responsible for Sepsis-Associated Bloodstream Infection

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 176-184

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.12.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Taibah University, Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective diagnosis and treatment of bloodstream infections are often hampered by a lack of time-critical information from blood cultures. Molecular techniques aimed at the detection of circulating pathogen DNA have the potential to dramatically improve the timeliness of infection diagnosis. Our aim in this study was to establish a rapid, low-cost PCR approach using high-resolution melting analysis to identify a syndromic panel of 21 pathogens responsible for most bloodstream bacterial infections encountered in critical care environments. A broad-range, real-time PCR technique that combines primers for molecular Gram classification and high-resolution melting analysis in a single run was established. The differentiation of bacterial species was achieved using a multiparameter, decision-tree approach that was based on Gram type, grouping according to melting temperature, and sequential comparisons of melting profiles against multiple reference organisms. A preliminary validation study was undertaken by blinded analysis of 53 consecutive bloodstream isolates from a clinical microbiology laboratory. Fifty isolates contained organisms that were present in the panel, and 96% of these were identified correctly at the genus or species level A correct Gram classification was reported for all 53 isolates. This technique shows promise as a cost-effective tool for the timely identification of bloodstream pathogens, allowing clinicians to make informed decisions on appropriate antibiotic therapies at an earlier stage. (J Mol Diagn 2012, 14: 176-184; DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2011.12.004)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据