These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of two methods for isolation of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis from bovine fecal samples.
    Author: Kim YG, Bech-Nielsen S, Gordon JC, Slemons RD, Spangler E.
    Journal: Am J Vet Res; 1989 Jul; 50(7):1110-3. PubMed ID: 2672913.
    Abstract:
    Fecal samples from 131 cattle clinically suspect for paratuberculosis were cultured bacteriologically, using the traditional sedimentation processing method and a processing method that included a centrifugation step. Of 16 samples that were contaminated, 6 were culture-positive on at least 1 medium and by 1 processing method. Ten of 131 (7.6%) fecal samples processed by both methods were lost because of contamination. The number of culture-positive samples (using both processing methods) were 65 of 121 (53.7%) on media without miconazole and 60 of 121 (49.6%) on media with miconazole. Seven of the 121 (5.8%) samples were culture-positive, using centrifugation, after 16 weeks' incubation at 37 C. Thirteen of 60 (21.7%) isolates were obtained only with centrifugation, and 10 of these had low colony counts, suggesting that a centrifugation step may have concentrated microorganisms that would have gone undetected without centrifugation. Six of 60 (10%) isolates positive for M paratuberculosis on the sedimentation method were negative on the centrifugation method. Contamination rates were significantly (P less than 0.001) increased when centrifugation was used. The miconazole significantly (P less than 0.001) decreased contamination rates when centrifugation was used.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]