Evaluation of the fluorescence actin staining test for detection of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli

9Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) strains designated on the basis of their serotypes are epidemiologically associated with diarrhea. They adhere to the intestinal mucosa, producing the characteristic attaching and effacing (AE) lesion in an in vitro organ culture system. EPEC manifest localized adherence (LA) in the HEp-2 cell assay, and this is commonly used for clinical diagnosis. Recently, the fluorescence actin staining (FAS) test was proposed for the identification of E. coli causing the AE lesion. We therefore compared the FAS test with the HEp-2 cell assay and the EPEC adherence factor (EAF) probe assay for the detection of EPEC strains. Among 240 stool samples from children with diarrhea examined, 176 yielded E. coli and 14 of these strains showed the LA pattern in the HEp-2 cell assay; 11 of these were positive by both the EAF and the FAS tests. By using the HEp-2 cell assay as the 'gold standard,' the FAS test gave a sensitivity of 78.5% and a specificity of 100%. The three localized adherent FAS-negative strains tested subsequently were positive by the enteroaggregative E. coli DNA Probe and failed to produce the AE lesions characteristic of EPEC. When these strains were not considered, the sensitivity of the FAS test for detecting isolates that manifest LA was 100%. Against the EAF probe, the sensitivity and specificity of the FAS test were 91.6 and 100%, respectively. The FAS test avoids infrequent but nevertheless important phenotypic misclassifications in the HEp-2 cell assay, and it may therefore serve as a confirmatory test for EPEC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shariff, M., Bhan, M. K., Knutton, S., Das, B. K., Saini, S., & Kumar, R. (1993). Evaluation of the fluorescence actin staining test for detection of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 31(2), 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.31.2.386-389.1993

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free