Bacterial Detection (bacterial + detection)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Bacterial detection in platelet components and the rationale for pathogen inactivation: A blood center perspective.,

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL APHERESIS, Issue 2 2005
Richard J. Benjamin
First page of article [source]


Comparison of different methods of bacterial detection in blood components

ISBT SCIENCE SERIES: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTRACELLULAR TRANSPORT, Issue 1 2009
M. Schmidt
Background, Over the last two decades, the residual risk of acquiring a transfusion-transmitted viral infection has been reduced to less than 1 : 1 000 000 via improvements in different techniques (e.g. donor selection, leuco-depletion, introduction of 3rd or 4th generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and mini-pool nucleic acid testing (MP-NAT). In contrast, the risk for transfusion-associated bacterial infections has remained fairly stable, and is estimated to be in a range between 1 : 2000 and 1 : 3000. Platelets are at an especially higher risk for bacterial contamination, because they are stored at room temperature, which provides good culture conditions for a broad range of bacterial strains. To improve bacterial safety of blood products, different detection systems have been developed that can be divided into culture systems like BacT/ALERT or Pall eBDS, rapid detection systems like NAT systems, immunoassays and systems based on the FACS technique. Culture systems are used for routine bacterial screening of platelets in many countries, whereas rapid detection systems so far are mainly used in experimental spiking studies. Nevertheless, pathogen-reduction systems are currently available for platelet concentrates and plasma, and are under investigation for erythrocytes. Methods, In this review, the functional principles of the different assays are described and discussed with regard to their analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity and clinical efficiency. The detection methods were clustered into three groups: (i) detection systems currently used for routine screening of blood products, (ii) experimental detection systems ready to use for routine screening of blood products, and (iii) new experimental detection systems that need to be investigated in additional spiking studies and clinical trials. Results, A recent International Society of Blood Transfusion international forum reported on bacterial detection methods in 12 countries. Eight countries have implemented BacT/ALERT into blood donor screening, whereas in three countries only quality controls were done by culture methods. In one country, shelf-life was reduced to 3 days, so no bacterial screening was implemented. Screening data with culture methods can be used to investigate the prevalence of bacterial contamination in platelets. Differing results between the countries could be explained by different test definitions and different test strategies. Nevertheless, false-negative results causing severe transfusion-related septic reactions have been reported all over the world due to a residual risk of sample errors. Rapid screening systems NAT and FACS assays have improved over the last few years and are now ready to be implemented in routine screening. Non-specific amplification in NAT can be prevented by pre-treatment with Sau3AI, filtration of NAT reagents, or reduction of the number of polymerase chain reaction cycles. FACS systems offer easy fully automated handling and a handling time of only 5 min, which could be an option for re-testing day-5 platelets. New screening approaches like immunoassays, detection of bacterial adenosine triphosphate, or detection of esterase activity need to be investigated in additional studies. Conclusion, Bacterial screening of blood products, especially platelets, can be done with a broad range of technologies. The ideal system should be able to detect one colony-forming unit per blood bag without a delay in the release process. Currently, we are far away from such an ideal screening system. Nevertheless, pathogen-inactivation systems are available, but a system for all blood components will not be expected in the next few years. Therefore, existing culture systems should be complemented by rapid systems like NAT or FACS especially for day-5 platelets. [source]


An evaluation of PCR primer sets used for detection of Propionibacterium acnes in prostate tissue samples

THE PROSTATE, Issue 14 2008
Karen S. Sfanos
Abstract BACKGROUND Multiple studies have now shown that Propionibacterium acnes can be cultured from post-prostatectomy derived prostate tissue samples. In contrast, both universal eubacterial 16S rDNA PCR and P. acnes -specific 16S rDNA PCR have failed to detect this organism at a frequency similar to that of bacterial culture. A potential explanation for this discrepancy, proposed by Cohen et al., involves mismatches in 16S rDNA primer sets used for bacterial detection. METHODS The sensitivity of both a previously published P. acnes -specific primer set containing a potential mismatch and a new primer set with no mismatches was determined. Both primer sets were used to interrogate two sets of DNA samples derived from post-prostatectomy prostate tissues that differed in the level of sterile precautions maintained during tissue collection. RESULTS The number of P. acnes positive samples was associated with the sterility of the sample collection process. In all instances, positive samples were determined to reflect low cell numbers (<10 CFU). CONCLUSIONS Although the results of previous studies have shown that P. acnes is not the only organism potentially present in the prostates of prostate cancer patients, mismatches in PCR primer sets may have also influenced the sensitivity of P. acnes detection. When using PCR in determining the presence of P. acnes in the human prostate, care should be taken to establish the potential influence of exogenous contamination and, due to the sensitivity of the assay, samples exposed to the urethra during the collection process (prostatic secretions, TURP specimens) should not be used. Prostate 68: 1492,1495, 2008. 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]


Quantitative characterization of quantum dot-labeled lambda phage for Escherichia coli detection ,,

BIOTECHNOLOGY & BIOENGINEERING, Issue 6 2009
Peter B. Yim
Abstract We characterize CdSe/ZnS quantum dot (QD) binding to genetically modified bacteriophage as a model for bacterial detection. Interactions among QDs, lambda (,) phage, and Escherichia coli are examined by several cross-validated methods. Flow and image-based cytometry clarify fluorescent labeling of bacteria, with image-based cytometry additionally reporting the number of decorated phage bound to cells. Transmission electron microscopy, image-based cytometry, and electrospray differential mobility analysis allow quantization of QDs attached to each phage (4,17 QDs) and show that , phage used in this study exhibits enhanced QD binding to the capsid by nearly a factor of four compared to bacteriophage T7. Additionally, the characterization methodology presented can be applied to the quantitative characterization of other fluorescent nanocrystal-biological conjugates. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009;104: 1059,1067. Published 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source]


Use of Quantitative Broad-based Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detection and Identification of Common Bacterial Pathogens in Cerebrospinal Fluid

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 7 2010
Richard Rothman MD
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:741,747 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Background:, Conventional laboratory diagnosis of bacterial meningitis based on microscopy followed by culture is time-consuming and has only moderate sensitivity. Objectives:, The objective was to define the limit of detection (LOD), analytic specificity, and performance characteristics of a broad-based quantitative multiprobe polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for rapid bacterial detection and simultaneous pathogen-specific identification in patients with suspected meningitis. Methods:, A PCR algorithm consisting of initial broad-based detection of Eubacteriales by a universal probe, followed by pathogen identification using either pathogen-specific probes or Gram-typing probes, was employed to detect pathogens. The 16S rRNA gene, which contains both conserved and variable regions, was chosen as the target. Pathogen-specific probes were designed for Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Listeria monocytogenes. Gram-positive and -negative typing probes were designed based on conserved regions across all eubacteria. The LOD and time to detection were assessed by dilutional mocked-up samples. A total of 108 convenience cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) clinical samples obtained from the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) microbiology laboratory were tested, and results were compared with hospital microbiologic culture reports. Results:, The LOD of the assay ranged from 101 to 102 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL. Pathogen-specific probes showed no cross-reactivity with other organisms. Time to detection was 3 hours. In clinical specimens, the universal probe correctly detected 16 of 22 culture-positive clinical specimens (sensitivity = 72.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.8% to 89.3%), which were all correctly characterized by either pathogen-specific or Gram-typing probes. Adjusted sensitivity after removing probable microbiologic laboratory contaminants was 88.9% (95% CI = 65.3% to 98.6%). The universal probe was negative for 86 of 86 culture-negative specimens. Conclusions:, A broad-based multiprobe PCR assay demonstrated strong analytic performance characteristics. Findings from a pilot clinical study showed promise in translation to human subjects, supporting potential utility of the assay as an adjunct to traditional diagnostics for early identification of bacterial meningitis. [source]


Rapid Polymerase Chain Reaction-based Screening Assay for Bacterial Biothreat Agents

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 4 2008
Samuel Yang MD
Abstract Objectives:, To design and evaluate a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay for detecting Eubacteria and performing early screening for selected Class A biothreat bacterial pathogens. Methods:, The authors designed a two-step PCR-based algorithm consisting of an initial broad-based universal detection step, followed by specific pathogen identification targeted for identification of the Class A bacterial biothreat agents. A region in the bacterial 16S rRNA gene containing a highly variable sequence flanked by clusters of conserved sequences was chosen as the target for the PCR assay design. A previously described highly conserved region located within the 16S rRNA amplicon was selected as the universal probe (UniProbe, Integrated DNA Technology, Coralville, IA). Pathogen-specific TaqMan probes were designed for Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, and Francisella tularensis. Performance of the assay was assessed using genomic DNA extracted from the aforementioned biothreat-related organisms (inactivated or surrogate) and other common bacteria. Results:, The UniProbe detected the presence of all tested Eubacteria (31/31) with high analytical sensitivity. The biothreat-specific probes accurately identified organisms down to the closely related species and genus level, but were unable to discriminate between very close surrogates, such as Yersinia philomiragia and Bacillus cereus. Conclusions:, A simple, two-step PCR-based assay proved capable of both universal bacterial detection and identification of select Class A bacterial biothreat and biothreat-related pathogens. Although this assay requires confirmatory testing for definitive species identification, the method has great potential for use in ED-based settings for rapid diagnosis in cases of suspected Category A bacterial biothreat agents. [source]