The comparative survey of phenotypic methods and the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method for detecting genus and species of non-fermented gram-negative bacteria isolated from blood samples in Isfahan, Iran

IF 1.1 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY
Shahnaz Eskandari, Nasim Shabani, A. Baradaran, S. Mobasherizadeh, S. Rostami, M. Derakhshan
{"title":"The comparative survey of phenotypic methods and the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method for detecting genus and species of non-fermented gram-negative bacteria isolated from blood samples in Isfahan, Iran","authors":"Shahnaz Eskandari, Nasim Shabani, A. Baradaran, S. Mobasherizadeh, S. Rostami, M. Derakhshan","doi":"10.34172/ipp.2023.39481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study compared phenotypic methods and the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method to identify the genus and species of non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli isolated from blood culture samples. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method in detecting the genus and species of non-fermented gram-negative bacteria isolated from blood samples. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 2019 to April 2020, including all patients who required sterile culture at AL Zahra and Kashani hospitals. Specimens were cultured in BACTEC and subjected to standard phenotypic methods. Subsequently, 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed to detect gram-negative non-fermenting Bacillus bacteria at the genus and species level. A comparative evaluation was then conducted. Results: The study identified 30 bacteria. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing method observed that 83.3% of the diagnoses were Acinetobacter baumannii, while the phenotypic approach identified 86.7% as Acinetobacter. Conclusion: The results indicate a significant difference between the phenotypic method and 16S rRNA sequencing in detecting non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB).","PeriodicalId":13454,"journal":{"name":"Immunopathologia Persa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Immunopathologia Persa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ipp.2023.39481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study compared phenotypic methods and the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method to identify the genus and species of non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli isolated from blood culture samples. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method in detecting the genus and species of non-fermented gram-negative bacteria isolated from blood samples. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 2019 to April 2020, including all patients who required sterile culture at AL Zahra and Kashani hospitals. Specimens were cultured in BACTEC and subjected to standard phenotypic methods. Subsequently, 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed to detect gram-negative non-fermenting Bacillus bacteria at the genus and species level. A comparative evaluation was then conducted. Results: The study identified 30 bacteria. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing method observed that 83.3% of the diagnoses were Acinetobacter baumannii, while the phenotypic approach identified 86.7% as Acinetobacter. Conclusion: The results indicate a significant difference between the phenotypic method and 16S rRNA sequencing in detecting non-fermenting gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB).
伊朗伊斯法罕地区血样中非发酵革兰氏阴性菌属和种检测的表型方法和16S rRNA基因测序方法的比较研究
前言:本研究比较了表型法和16S rRNA基因测序法对从血液培养样本中分离的非发酵革兰氏阴性杆菌进行属和种鉴定。目的:评价16S rRNA基因测序法检测血样中非发酵革兰氏阴性菌属和种的有效性。材料和方法:2019年4月至2020年4月进行了一项横断面研究,包括AL Zahra和Kashani医院需要无菌培养的所有患者。标本在BACTEC中培养,并采用标准表型方法。随后进行16S rRNA基因测序,在属和种水平检测革兰氏阴性非发酵芽孢杆菌。然后进行了比较评价。结果:共鉴定出30种细菌。16S rRNA基因测序法诊断为鲍曼不动杆菌的占83.3%,表型法诊断为不动杆菌的占86.7%。结论:表型法与16S rRNA测序法在检测非发酵革兰氏阴性杆菌(NFGNB)方面存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信