2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.02.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of different API systems for identification of porcine Pasteurella multocida isolates

Abstract: An exhaustive biochemical characterisation of 60 porcine Pasteurella multocida clinical isolates recovered from lesions indicative of pneumonia, previously confirmed by PCR and all belonging to the capsular serogroup A, was performed by means of four commercial systems. The API 20NE correctly identified almost all isolates (95%), but only 60% could be ascribed to this species by the API 20E method. The high diversity exhibited by the API 50CHB/E system, with six different patterns, does not advise its use as a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
2
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results showed moderate biochemical variability among the P multocida isolates examined with 26 different profiles obtained using the API 20E system, as well as a significant percentage of isolates (21.7 per cent) that were not accurately identified with this method. Although this percentage is lower than the 36 per cent of misidentified isolates of P multocida obtained by Collins and others (1981), the present results confirm that the API 20E should not be considered a reliable system for the correct identification of P multocida isolates in clinical laboratories (Vera Lizarazo and others 2008). On the other hand, considering that all isolates were identified as P multocida using the PCR assay proposed by Townsend and others (1998), this genetic identification technique would represent a rapid, reliable and precise alternative to the phenotypic identification of P multocida isolates using commercial identification systems.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 50%
“…The results showed moderate biochemical variability among the P multocida isolates examined with 26 different profiles obtained using the API 20E system, as well as a significant percentage of isolates (21.7 per cent) that were not accurately identified with this method. Although this percentage is lower than the 36 per cent of misidentified isolates of P multocida obtained by Collins and others (1981), the present results confirm that the API 20E should not be considered a reliable system for the correct identification of P multocida isolates in clinical laboratories (Vera Lizarazo and others 2008). On the other hand, considering that all isolates were identified as P multocida using the PCR assay proposed by Townsend and others (1998), this genetic identification technique would represent a rapid, reliable and precise alternative to the phenotypic identification of P multocida isolates using commercial identification systems.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 50%
“…Eight isolates exhibited no growth on MacConkey agar, and they were correctly identifed as P. multocida by API ® 20NE with a numerical profle of 3000004 (% ID � 96%). Tis numerical profle is consistent with the results of previous studies [29,30]. Meanwhile, the other two isolates (468 and 492) grew pink bacterial colonies on MacConkey agar (Figure 1(c)).…”
Section: Bacterial Identifcationsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Both of these characteristics are not accommodated by the API ® 20NE test, so they can cause misidentifcation if not tested separately. Cases of misidentifcation by API ® 20NE on P. multocida have also been reported in a previous study [30]. Te misidentifed isolate was identifed as Aeromonas salmonicida (% ID � 55.2%).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Through API 50 CHL test, LS, LP, and L14 which were isolated from different products were identified as L. plantarum 1 (Figure 1). The API 50 CHL system can be useful for characterizing the bacteria below species level, but it has limitations that cannot identify all unknown bacteria [38]. For this reason, 16S rRNA sequencing was supplementally performed to clarify that the three LABs were L. plantarum (data not shown).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%