Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:45:04.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistotyping of campylobacters: fulfilling a need

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. D. Ribeiro ,
M. T. Thomas ,
D. Kembrey ,
J. T. Magee  and
Z. North
C. D. Ribeiro
Affiliation:
1Department of Medical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW
M. T. Thomas
Affiliation:
1Department of Medical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW
D. Kembrey
Affiliation:
2Environment and Health Division, Community Services Department, Newport Borough Council, Civic Centre, Newport NP9 4VR
J. T. Magee
Affiliation:
1Department of Medical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW
Z. North
Affiliation:
1Department of Medical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XW
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A 9-month trial of a simple typing scheme for ‘thermophilic’ enteric campylobacter isolates at a large Public Health Laboratory is described. Resistotyping was performed with six agents in a method modified by Bolton and colleagues from an earlier scheme, and biotyping was performed by a modified Lior scheme involving three tests. Reproducibility was excellent in both schemes, with test variation < 2%. Five household clusters and one larger presumptive milk-borne outbreak were identified in this scheme, and confirmed in pyrolysis mass spectrometry. The 328 isolates from new patients, excluding duplication from these clusters, were divided into 35 resistotypes with the largest group comprising 22% of isolates. In combined bio- and resistotyping, 86 types were found, with the largest group comprising 9·5% of isolates. The results are contrasted with salmonella sero- and phage-typing, where, on the same basis, the 176 isolates in the same period were divided into 40 groups, with the largest comprising 45% of isolates. Resistotyping, with or without additional biotyping, proved to be a convenient, simple, rapid, highly discriminatory, reproducible and inexpensive method well suited to use in local laboratories. It is a strong candidate for first-line national and local surveillance of campylobacter infections, fulfilling a need for monitoring of this important cause of enteric disease.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 169 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

1.Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food Interim Report on Campylobacter. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
2.Skirrow, MB, Benjamin, J. ‘1001’ Campylobacters: Cultural characteristics of intestinal campylobacters from man and animals. J Hyg 1980; 85: 427–42.Google Scholar
3.Skirrow, MB, Benjamin, J. Differentiation of enteropathogenic campylobacters. J Clin Pathol 1980; 33: 1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Lior, H. New extended biotyping sheme for Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter laridis. J Clin Microbiol 1984; 20: 636–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Roop, RM, Smibert, RM, Krieg, NR. Improved bio-typing schemes for Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. J Clin Microbiol 1984; 20: 990–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Bolton, FJ, Holt, AV, Hutchinson, DN. Campylobacter biotyping scheme of epidemiological value. J Clin Pathol 1984; 27: 677–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Grajewski, BA, Kusek, JW, Gelfand, HM. Development of a bacteriophage typing system for Campylobacter jejuni/coli. J Clin Microbiol 1985; 22: 13–8.Google Scholar
8.Khakhria, R, Lior, H. Extended phage typing scheme for Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. Epidemiol Infect 1992; 108: 403–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Penner, JL, Hennessy, JN. Passive haemagglutination technique for serotyping Campylobacter fetus subsp. jejuni on the basis of soluble, heat-stable antigens. J Clin Microbiol 1980; 12: 732–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Abbott, JD, Dale, B, Eldridge, J, Jones, DM. Serotyping of Campylobacter jejuni/coli. J Clin Pathol 1980; 33: 762–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lior, H, Woodward, DL, Edgar, JA, Laroche, LV, Gill, P. Serotyping of Campylobacter jejuni by side agglutination based on heat-labile antigenic factors. J Clin Microbiol 1982; 15: 761–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hebert, GA, Hollis, DG, Weaver, RE, Steigerwalt, AG, McKinney, RM, Brenner, DJ. Serogroups of Campylobacter jejuni, Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter fetus defined by direct immunofluorescence. J Clin Microbiol 1983; 17: 529–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Ferguson, DA, Lambe, DW. Differentiation of Campylobacter species by protein banding patterns in polyacrylamide slab gels. J Clin Microbiol 1984; 20: 453–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Owen, RJ, Costas, M, Dawson, C. Application of different chromosomal DNA fingerprints to specific and subspecific identification of Campylobacter isolates. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27: 2338–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Owen, RJ, Hernandez, J, Bolton, FJ. DNA reaction digest and ribosomal RNA gene patterns of Campylobacter jejuni: a comparison with bio-, sero- and bacteriophage-types of United Kingdom outbreak strains. Epidemiol Infect 1990; 105: 265–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Fayos, A, Owen, RJ, Desai, M, Hernandez, J. Ribosomal RNA gene restriction fragment diversity amongst Lior biotypes and Penner serotypes of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1992; 74: 87–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Mourean, P, Derclaye, I, Gregoire, D, Janssen, M, Cornelis, GR. Campylobacter species identification based on polymorphism of DNA encoding RNA. J Clin Microbiol 1989; 27: 1514–7.Google Scholar
18.Yan, W, Chang, N, Taylor, DE. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli genomic DNA and its epidemiological application. J Infect Dis 1991; 163: 1068–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Aeschbacher, M, Piffaretti, J-C. Population genetics of human and animal enteric Campylobacter strains. Infect Immun 1989; 57: 1432–7.Google Scholar
20.Mazurier, S, van de Giesson, A, Heuvelman, K, Wernars, K. RAPD analysis of Campylobacter isolates: DNA fingerprinting without the need to purify DNA. Lett Appl Microbiol 1992; 14: 260–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Magee, JT. Whole organism fingerprinting. In: Goodfellow, M, O'Donnell, AT, eds. Handbook of new bacterial systematics. London: Academic Press, 1993; 383–427.Google Scholar
22.Magee, JT, Philpot, C, Yang, J, Hosein, IK. Pyrolysis typing of isolates from a recurrence of systemic cryptococcosis. J Med Microbiol 1994; 40: 165–9.Google Scholar
23.Freeman, R, Goodfellow, M, Gould, FK, Hudson, SJ, Lightfoot, NF. Pyrolysis mass-spectrometry for the rapid epidemiological typing of clinically significant bacterial pathogens. J Med Microbiol 1990; 32: 283–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Bolton, FJ, Wareing, DRA, Skirrow, MB, Hutchinson, DN. In: Identification methods in applied and environmental microbiology. London: Society of Applied Bacteriology, 1992: 151–62.Google Scholar
25.Southern, JP, Smith, RMM, Palmer, SR. Bird attack on milk bottles: possible mode of transmission of Campylobacter jejuni to man. Lancet 1990; 336: 1425–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Hudson, SJ, Lightfoot, NF, Coulson, JC, Russell, K, Sisson, PR, Sobo, AO. Jackdaws and magpies as vectors of milkborne campylobacter infection. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 107: 363–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed