ĐÁNH GIÁ HIỆU QUẢ ĐỊNH DANH CÁC CHỦNG Burkholderia pseudomallei KHÔNG ĐIỂN HÌNH BẰNG VITEK 2
Viện Y sinh Nhiệt đới, Trung tâm Nhiệt đới Việt - Nga
Số 63, Nguyễn Văn Huyên - Nghĩa Đô - Cầu Giấy - Hà Nội
Số điện thoại: 0948246464; Email: lananhrus@gmail.com
Nội dung chính của bài viết
Tóm tắt
ASSESSMENT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DETERMINING ATYPICAL BURKHOLDERIA PSEUDOMALLEI STRAINS BY VITEK 2 SYSTEM
The rate of accurate identification of B. pseudomallei strains causing melioidosis is about 86% by the Vitek 2 system. For atypical strains, sensitive to gentamicin, this rate is only about 57%. The mistaken identification of the causative agent lead to incorrect treatment regimens, which can lead to die. 30 strains of B. pseudomallei isolated from clinical samples, 6 strains of B. pseudomallei and 6 strains of B. thailandensis isolated from soil samples were identified using Vitek 2 system. The above bacterial strains were confirmed by multiplex PCR method and gene sequencing in previous studies. The results indicated that by Vitek 2 system, B. pseudomallei strains isolated from clinical samples had an accuracy rate of 97 %, B. pseudomallei strains isolated from soil samples had an accuracy rate of only 67%. Thus, the Vitek 2 identification method gives high diagnostic efficiency on typical B. pseudomallei strains isolated from clinical samples. However, with the group of bacteria B. pseudomallei atypical, isolated from soil, the wrong detection results up to 75%. The malonate reaction (MNT) on Vitek 2 is considered an important marker to distinguish B. thailandensis from B. pseudomallei.
Từ khóa
Burkholderia pseudomallei, B. thailandensis, identification, Vitek 2
Chi tiết bài viết
Tài liệu tham khảo
2. Vaucel M., Présence probable du bacille de Whitmore dans l’eau de mare au Tonkin, Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exot., 1937, 30:10-15.
4. Chambon L., Isolement du bacille de Whitmore à partir du milieu extérieur. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 1955, 89:229-235.
5. Pons R., Advier M., Melioidosis in Cochin China, J. Hyg. (Lond.), 1927, 26:28-30.
6. Trinh T. T., Hoang T. S., Tran D. A., V. T. Trinh, A. Göhler, T. T. Nguyen, S. N. Hoang, R. Krumkamp, L. T. N. Nguyen, J. May, P. M. Doan, C. D. Do, T. A. Que, I. Steinmetz, A simple laboratory algorithm for diagnosis of melioidosis in resource-constrained areas: a study from north-central Vietnam, Clin. Microbiol. Infect., 2018, 24(1):84.e1-84.e4.
7. Podin Y., Sarovich D. S., Price E. P., Mirjam Kaestli, Mark Mayo, King Ching Hii, HieUng Ngian, SeeChang Wong, IngTien Wong, JinShyan Wong, Anand Mohan, MongHow Ooi, TemLom Fam, Jack Wong, Apichai Tuanyok, Paul Keim, Philip M. Giffard, and Bart J. Currie, Burkholderia pseudomallei isolates from Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, are predominantly susceptible to aminoglycosides and macrolides, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 2014, 58(1):162-166.
8. Kiratisin P., Santanirand P., Chantratita N., Kaewdaeng S., Accuracy of commercial systems for identification of Burkholderia pseudomallei versus Burkholderia cepacia, Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 2007, 59(3):277-281.
9. Zakharova I. B., Lopasteyskaya Y. A., Toporkov A. V., Viktorov D. V., Influence of biochemical features of Burkholderia pseudomallei strains on identification reliability by Vitek 2 system, J. Glob. Infect. Dis., 2018, 10(1):7-10.
10. Zong Z., Wang X., Deng Y., Zhou T., Misidentification of Burkholderia pseudomallei as Burkholderia cepacia by the VITEK 2 system, J. Med. Microbiol., 2012, 61:1483-1484.
11. Bin Wu, Xinxin Tong, Haoyan He, Yinmei Yang, Huling Chen, Xiao Yang, and Bang lao Xu, Misidentification of Burkholderia pseudomallei, China Emerg. Infect. Dis., 2021, 27(3):964-966.
12. Brett, P. J., D. DeShazer, and D. E. Woods, Burkholderia thailandensis sp. nov., a Burkholderia pseudomallei-like species, Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 1998, 48:317-320.