Miniaturized tests for computer-assisted identification of motile Aeromonas species with an improved probability matrix

Abstract

Aims: To develop miniaturized tests for the phenotypic identi®cation of motile Aeromonas species using an improved probability matrix. Methods and Results: Conventional tests were miniaturized for use in 96-well plates, and their performance assessed using 60 aeromonads comprising type and reference strains as well as clinical, ®sh and water isolates. A revised probability matrix for Aeromonas hybridization groups 1±14, including A. allosaccharophila, A. bestiarum, A. encheleia and A. popof®i, was developed. Using 26 tests, all the reference strains were correctly identi®ed with the revised probability matrix, and 80% of the isolates were correctly identi®ed at a Willcox probability level of 95%. Conclusions: The compact test format, coupled with a robust identi®cation matrix, provides a convenient basis for identifying motile aeromonads. Signi®cance and Impact of the Study: The identi®cation system for identifying aeromonads will be of use to medical and veterinary laboratories undertaking disease diagnosis.

ESBL determination and antibacterial drug resistance pattern of <i>Klebsiella Pneumoniae</i> amongst patients at PIMS Islamabad

“…The generated number from API 20E system for K .pneumoniae was then checked in the catalogue book and was identified 95 percent up to species level. (Figure 8) Results showed similarity with findings by (Carson et al, 2001). …”

Occurrence and characterization of Aeromonas hydrophila and Yersinia enterocolitica in minimally processed fresh vegetable salads

“…(Abbott et al, 2003;Blair et al, 1999;Carson, Wagner, Wilson, & Donachie, 2001;Janda, 1998;Janda et al, 1996;Martin-Carnahan & Joseph, 2005;Martínez-Murcia et al, 2005;Minana-Galbis, Farfan, Loren, & Fuste, 2002).…”

Aeromonas bivalvium sp. nov., isolated from bivalve molluscs

“…HG11 (Huys et al, 1997) and A. culicicola (Huys et al, 2005) and extended descriptions of A. eucrenophila and A. encheleia (Huys et al, 1997) and A. jandaei (Esteve et al, 2003). In this context, several authors have proposed useful tables for the phenotypic differentiation of Aeromonas species based on a limited number of key tests (Carson et al, 2001;Miñana-Galbis et al, 2002Valera & Esteve, 2002;Abbott et al, 2003;Martin-Carnahan & Joseph, 2005). Genotypic classification of aeromonads at the genus level is currently recommended based on DNA G+C content and for species delineation based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses and DNA-DNA reassociation experiments, although other genomic methods, such as DNA profiling or rpoD and gyrB gene sequencing, are useful for Aeromonas species discrimination (Stackebrandt et al, 2002;Soler et al, 2004;Martin-Carnahan & Joseph, 2005;Morandi et al, 2005).…”

“…HG11 (Huys et al, 1997) and A. culicicola (Huys et al, 2005) and extended descriptions of A. eucrenophila and A. encheleia (Huys et al, 1997) and A. jandaei (Esteve et al, 2003). In this context, several authors have proposed useful tables for the phenotypic differentiation of Aeromonas species based on a limited number of key tests (Carson et al, 2001; Miñana-Galbis et al, 2002Valera & Esteve, 2002;Abbott et al, 2003;Martin-Carnahan & Joseph, 2005). Genotypic classification of aeromonads at the genus level is currently recommended based on DNA G+C content and for species delineation based on 16S In the present study, a polyphasic approach was used in order to determine the taxonomic position of two Aeromonas strains isolated from bivalve molluscs that clustered together as a separate phenon (phenon VII) but could not be identified at the species level in a previous phenotypic study of the genus Aeromonas (Miñana- Galbis et al, 2002).…”