Comparison of the automated Phoenix with the Vitek 2 for the identification of <i>Streptococcus pneumoniae</i>Portions of this study were presented at the 2007 American Society of Microbiology 107th General Meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Mittman, Scott A. MittmanS.A.; Huard, Richard C.; Della‐Latta, Phyllis; Whittier, Susan

doi:10.1139/w10-016

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years, the use of commercial kits, either manual or automated, has increased in most microbiology laboratories. All commercial identification systems are based on the expression of phenotypic characteristics to identify a microorganism, including: (1) biochemical reactions (Holmes, Willcox, & Lapage, 1978); (2) enzyme-based reactions (Ling, Liu, & Cheng, 2003;Mittman, Huard, Della-Latta, & Whittier, 2010); (3) utilization of carbon sources (Miller & Rhoden, 1991); and (4) detection of volatile or nonvolatile fatty acids (VFAs) via gas chromatography (Julák et al, 2000).…”

Section: Rapid Methods: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial detection and identification methods: Bench top assays to omics approaches

Ferone

Gowen

Fanning

et al. 2020

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

147

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid detection of foodborne pathogens, spoilage microbes, and other biological contaminants in complex food matrices is essential to maintain food quality and ensure consumer safety. Traditional methods involve culturing microbes using a range of nonselective and selective enrichment methods, followed by biochemical confirmation among others. The time‐to‐detection is a key limitation when testing foods, particularly those with short shelf lives, such as fresh meat, fish, dairy products, and vegetables. Some recent detection methods developed include the use of spectroscopic techniques, such as matrix‐assisted laser desorption ionization‐time of flight along with hyperspectral imaging protocols.This review presents a comprehensive overview comparing insights into the principles, characteristics, and applications of newer and emerging techniques methods applied to the detection and identification of microbes in food matrices, to more traditional benchtop approaches. The content has been developed to provide specialist scientists a broad view of bacterial identification methods available in terms of their benefits and limitations, which may be useful in the development of future experimental design. The case is also made for incorporating some of these emerging methods into the mainstream, for example, underutilized potential of spectroscopic techniques and hyperspectral imaging.

show abstract

Section: Rapid Methods: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial detection and identification methods: Bench top assays to omics approaches

Ferone

Gowen

Fanning

et al. 2020

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

147

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Rapid Devices and Instruments for the Identification of Aerobic Bacteria

Chandler

LaSala

Whittier

2016

Manual of Commercial Methods in Clinical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phoenix 100 versus Vitek 2 in the Identification of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phoenix 100 and Vitek 2 (operating with the current colorimetric cards) are commonly used in hospital laboratories for rapid identification of microorganisms. The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare their performance on Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The MEDLINE database was searched up to October 2010 for the retrieval of relevant articles. Pooled correct identification rates were derived from random-effects models, using the arcsine transformation. Separate analyses were conducted at the genus and species levels; subanalyses and meta-regression were undertaken to reveal meaningful systemand study-related modifiers. A total of 29 (6,635 isolates) and 19 (4,363 isolates) articles were eligible for Phoenix and colorimetric Vitek 2, respectively. No significant differences were observed between Phoenix and Vitek 2 either at the genus (97.70% versus 97.59%, P ‫؍‬ 0.919) or the species (92.51% versus 88.77%, P ‫؍‬ 0.149) level. Studies conducted with conventional comparator methods tended to report significantly better results compared to those using molecular reference techniques. Speciation of Staphylococcus aureus was significantly more accurate in comparison to coagulase-negative staphylococci by both Phoenix (99.78% versus 88.42%, P < 0.00001) and Vitek 2 (98.22% versus 91.89%, P ‫؍‬ 0.043). Vitek 2 also reached higher correct identification rates for Gram-negative fermenters versus nonfermenters at the genus (99.60% versus 95.90%, P ‫؍‬ 0.004) and the species (97.42% versus 84.85%, P ‫؍‬ 0.003) level. In conclusion, the accuracy of both systems seems modified by underlying sample-and comparator method-related parameters. Future simultaneous assessment of the instruments against molecular comparator procedures may facilitate interpretation of the current observations.

show abstract

Comparison of the automated Phoenix with the Vitek 2 for the identification of Streptococcus pneumoniaePortions of this study were presented at the 2007 American Society of Microbiology 107th General Meeting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cited by 3 publications

References 31 publications

Microbial detection and identification methods: Bench top assays to omics approaches

Microbial detection and identification methods: Bench top assays to omics approaches

Rapid Devices and Instruments for the Identification of Aerobic Bacteria

Phoenix 100 versus Vitek 2 in the Identification of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria: a Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About