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: Two-laboratory collaborative study on identification of mycobacteria: molecular versus phenotypic methods.
    Author: Springer B, Stockman L, Teschner K, Roberts GD, Böttger EC.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 1996 Feb; 34(2):296-303. PubMed ID: 8789004.
    Abstract:
    Previous studies have indicated that the conventional tests used for the identification of mycobacteria may (i) frequently result in erroneous identification and (ii) underestimate the diversity within the genus Mycobacterium. To address this issue in a more systematic fashion, a study comparing phenotypic and molecular methods for the identification of mycobacteria was initiated. Focus was given to isolates which were difficult to identify to species level and which yielded inconclusive results by conventional tests performed under day-to-day routine laboratory conditions. Traditional methods included growth rate, colonial morphology, pigmentation, biochemical profiles, and gas-liquid chromatography of short-chain fatty acids. Molecular identification was done by PCR-mediated partial sequence analysis of the gene encoding the 16S rRNA. A total of 34 isolates was included in this study; 13 of the isolates corresponded to established species, and 21 isolates corresponded to previously uncharacterized taxa. For five isolates, phenotypic and molecular analyses gave identical results. For five isolates, minor discrepancies were present; four isolates remained unidentified after biochemical testing. For 20 isolates, major discrepancies between traditional and molecular typing methods were observed. Retrospective analysis of the data revealed that the discrepant results were without exception due to erroneous biochemical test results or interpretations. In particular, phenotypic identification schemes were compromised with regard to the recognition of previously undescribed taxa. We conclude that molecular typing by 16S rRNA sequence determination is not only more rapid (12 to 36 h versus 4 to 8 weeks) but also more accurate than traditional typing.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]