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] Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile isolated from paediatric patients in Western Australia 2019-2020
    Perumalsamy, Sicilia
    Lim, Su Chen
    Riley, Thomas, V
    PATHOLOGY, 2022, 54 (04) : 460 - 465
  • [32] Clostridium difficile
    Curry, Scott
    CLINICS IN LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2010, 30 (01) : 329 - +
  • [33] 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
  • [34] 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
  • [35] Genetic relatedness between Japanese and European isolates of Clostridium difficile originating from piglets and their risk associated with human health
    Usui, Masaru
    Nanbu, Yukie
    Oka, Kentaro
    Takahashi, Motomichi
    Inamatsu, Takashi
    Asai, Tetsuo
    Kamiya, Shigeru
    Tamura, Yutaka
    FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY, 2014, 5
  • [36] Pathology Consultation on Detection of Clostridium difficile
    Svensson, Annika M.
    LaSala, P. Rocco
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2012, 137 (01) : 10 - 15
  • [37] 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
  • [38] 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
  • [39] The Complexity and Diversity of the Pathogenicity Locus in Clostridium difficile Clade 5
    Elliott, Briony
    Dingle, Kate E.
    Didelot, Xavier
    Crook, Derrick W.
    Riley, Thomas V.
    GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2014, 6 (12): : 3159 - 3170
  • [40] Pathogenicity of Clostridium difficile in humans and animals in the assessment of eventual connections
    Truszczynski, Marian
    Pejsak, Zygmunt
    MEDYCYNA WETERYNARYJNA-VETERINARY MEDICINE-SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 2012, 68 (08): : 451 - 455