Identification of Gram negative non-fermentative bacteria: How hard can it be?
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Identification of Gram negative non-fermentative bacteria: How hard can it be?

Filetype[PDF-1.07 MB]


  • English
    • Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      PLoS Negl Trop Dis
    • Personal Author:
    • Description:
      Introduction

      The prevalence of bacteremia caused by Gram negative non-fermentative (GNNF) bacteria has been increasing globally over the past decade. Many studies have investigated their epidemiology but focus on the common GNNF including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. Knowledge of the uncommon GNNF bacteremias is very limited. This study explores invasive bloodstream infection GNNF isolates that were initially unidentified after testing with standard microbiological techniques. All isolations were made during laboratory-based surveillance activities in two rural provinces of Thailand between 2006 and 2014.

      Methods

      A subset of GNNF clinical isolates (204/947), not identified by standard manual biochemical methodologies were run on the BD Phoenix automated identification and susceptibility testing system. If an organism was not identified (12/204) DNA was extracted for whole genome sequencing (WGS) on a MiSeq platform and data analysis performed using 3 web-based platforms: Taxonomer, CGE KmerFinder and One Codex.

      Results

      The BD Phoenix automated identification system recognized 92% (187/204) of the GNNF isolates, and because of their taxonomic complexity and high phenotypic similarity 37% (69/187) were only identified to the genus level. Five isolates grew too slowly for identification. Antimicrobial sensitivity (AST) data was not obtained for 93/187 (50%) identified isolates either because of their slow growth or their taxa were not in the AST database associated with the instrument. WGS identified the 12 remaining unknowns, four to genus level only.

      Conclusion

      The GNNF bacteria are of increasing concern in the clinical setting, and our inability to identify these organisms and determine their AST profiles will impede treatment. Databases for automated identification systems and sequencing annotation need to be improved so that opportunistic organisms are better covered.

    • Subjects:
    • Source:
      PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 13(9)
    • Pubmed ID:
      31568511
    • Pubmed Central ID:
      PMC6786646
    • Document Type:
      Journal Article
    • Place as Subject:
      Thailand
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • Download URL:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov