Evaluation of a PCR assay for identification and differentiation of Campylobacter fetus subspecies.

135Citations
Citations of this article
58Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a polymerase chain reaction assay for identification of Campylobacter fetus and differentiation of the defined subspecies. DESIGN: Characterisation of bacterial strains by traditional phenotyping, polymerase chain reaction, a probabilistic identification scheme and macrorestriction profiling using pulsed field gel electrophoresis. PROCEDURE: The results of identification of 99 bacterial strains as determined by conventional phenotyping or by polymerase chain reaction were compared. Two of these were type strains of C fetus subsp fetus and C fetus subsp venerealis; the remaining strains were field isolates putatively identified as C fetus. In cases where the subspecies identity was disputed, isolates were identified by means of a probabilistic identification scheme and by macrorestriction profiling. RESULTS: The agreement between strain identities initially suggested by traditional phenotypic methods and the PCR assay was found to be 80.8%. The polymerase chain reaction proved to be a reliable technique for the species and subspecies identification of C fetus; equivocal results were obtained in only two instances. Initial misidentifications by conventional phenotyping methods were attributed to methodological differences used in various laboratories. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that misidentification of C fetus in routine diagnostic laboratories may be relatively common. The PCR assay evaluated gave rapid and reproducible results and is thus a valuable adjunctive method for the identification of C fetus and subsequent subspecies differentiation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hum, S., Quinn, K., Brunner, J., & On, S. L. (1997). Evaluation of a PCR assay for identification and differentiation of Campylobacter fetus subspecies. Australian Veterinary Journal, 75(11), 827–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1997.tb15665.x

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