ArticleIrish veterinary journal2013
Investigations on the efficacy of routinely used phenotypic methods compared to genotypic approaches for the identification of staphylococcal species isolated from companion animals in Irish veterinary hospitals.
Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aerobic Bacterial Community of American Cockroach Periplaneta americana,a Step toward Finding Suitable Paratransgenesis Candidates.Journal of arthropod-borne diseases · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of Staphylococci to species level in veterinary microbiology is important to inform therapeutic intervention and management. We report on the efficacy of three routinely used commercial phenotypic methods for staphylococcal species identification, namely API Staph 32 (bioMérieux), RapID (Remel) and Staph-Zym (Rosco Diagnostica) compared to genotyping as a reference method to identify 52 staphylococcal clinical isolates (23 coagulase positive; 29 coagulase negative) from companion animals in Irish veterinary hospitals.
resultsGenotyping of a 412 bp fragment of the staphylococcal tuf gene and coagulase testing were carried out on all 52 veterinary samples along with 7 reference strains. In addition, genotyping of the staphylococcal rpoB gene, as well as PCR-RFLP of the pta gene, were performed to definitively identify members of the Staphylococcus intermedius group (SIG). The API Staph 32 correctly identified all S. aureus isolates (11/11), 83% (10/12) of the SIG species, and 66% (19/29) of the coagulase negative species. RapID and Staph-Zym correctly identified 61% (14/23) and 0% (0/23) respectively of the coagulase-positives, and 10% (3/29) and 3% (1/29) respectively of the coagulase-negative species.
conclusionsCommercially available phenotypic species identification tests are inadequate for the correct identification of both coagulase negative and coagulase positive staphylococcal species from companion animals. Genotyping using the tuf gene sequence is superior to phenotyping for identification of staphylococcal species of animal origin. However, use of PCR-RFLP of pta gene or rpoB sequencing is recommended as a confirmatory method for discriminating between SIG isolates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.