1999
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695x.1999.tb01293.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification ofClostridium botulinumwith API 20 A, Rapid ID 32 A and RapID ANA II

Abstract: Three commercially available test systems for the identification of anaerobic bacteria were evaluated for the identification of 18 proteolytic group I and 69 non-proteolytic group II Clostridium botulinum, four Clostridium sporogenes and 18 non-toxigenic group II C. botulinum-like strains. All proteolytic C. botulinum strains were misidentified by the Rapid ID 32 A and RapID ANA II, while 14 strains and all C. sporogenes strains were identified as C. botulinum or C. sporogenes by the API 20 A. Reversely, all n… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The diagnosis of tetanus is usually made clinically and does not routinely require isolation of C. tetani [3,4]. Laboratory identification of C. tetani has traditionally been challenging and at times inconclusive, relying on various techniques, including culture in pre-reduced anaerobically sterilized (PRAS) media, analytical profile index methods, and toxin production in mice [3,[8][9][10][11]. More recently, and as our case illustrates, identification of C. tetani has leveraged confirmatory testing modalities (including matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry and 16S rRNA genome sequencing) that arguably may be less labor-intensive and more accurate than traditional methods [8,12].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The diagnosis of tetanus is usually made clinically and does not routinely require isolation of C. tetani [3,4]. Laboratory identification of C. tetani has traditionally been challenging and at times inconclusive, relying on various techniques, including culture in pre-reduced anaerobically sterilized (PRAS) media, analytical profile index methods, and toxin production in mice [3,[8][9][10][11]. More recently, and as our case illustrates, identification of C. tetani has leveraged confirmatory testing modalities (including matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry and 16S rRNA genome sequencing) that arguably may be less labor-intensive and more accurate than traditional methods [8,12].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The near identical phenotype without the risk of exposure to botulinum toxin makes this species an ideal surrogate. Inevitably, the significant similarity between these species has led to the misdiagnosis of pathogenic clostridia as C. sporogenes (Lindstrom et al, 1999). A pubmed search with the query "Clostridium sporogenes[title]" reveals five clinical reports in the last 30 years purporting C. sporogenes as the causative agent of infection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%