11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Automated detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in clinical samples: isothermal tcdB amplification coupled to array-based detection.

      Journal of Clinical Microbiology
      Automation, Laboratory, methods, Bacterial Proteins, genetics, Bacterial Toxins, Bacteriological Techniques, Clostridium Infections, diagnosis, microbiology, Clostridium difficile, isolation & purification, Feces, Humans, Microarray Analysis, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Clostridium difficile can carry a genetically variable pathogenicity locus (PaLoc), which encodes clostridial toxins A and B. In hospitals and in the community at large, this organism is increasingly identified as a pathogen. To develop a diagnostic test that combines the strengths of immunoassays (cost) and DNA amplification assays (sensitivity/specificity), we targeted a genetically stable PaLoc region, amplifying tcdB sequences and detecting them by hybridization capture. The assay employs a hot-start isothermal method coupled to a multiplexed chip-based readout, creating a manual assay that detects toxigenic C. difficile with high sensitivity and specificity within 1 h. Assay automation on an electromechanical instrument produced an analytical sensitivity of 10 CFU (95% probability of detection) of C. difficile in fecal samples, along with discrimination against other enteric bacteria. To verify automated assay function, 130 patient samples were tested: 31/32 positive samples (97% sensitive; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82 to 99%) and 98/98 negative samples (100% specific; 95% CI, 95 to 100%) were scored correctly. Large-scale clinical studies are now planned to determine clinical sensitivity and specificity.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article