Cargando…

Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs

A number of Helicobacter species may confound experimental data because of their association with disease progressing in various kinds of laboratory animals. Screening of Helicobacter species is particularly desirable, because they are prevalent in commercial and research animal facilities. The aim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hong, Sunhwa, Chung, Yungho, Kang, Won-Guk, Choi, Yeon-Shik, Kim, Okjin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490150/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26155203
http://dx.doi.org/10.5625/lar.2015.31.2.86
_version_ 1782379457575649280
author Hong, Sunhwa
Chung, Yungho
Kang, Won-Guk
Choi, Yeon-Shik
Kim, Okjin
author_facet Hong, Sunhwa
Chung, Yungho
Kang, Won-Guk
Choi, Yeon-Shik
Kim, Okjin
author_sort Hong, Sunhwa
collection PubMed
description A number of Helicobacter species may confound experimental data because of their association with disease progressing in various kinds of laboratory animals. Screening of Helicobacter species is particularly desirable, because they are prevalent in commercial and research animal facilities. The aim of the present study was to compare three diagnostic methods [e.g. Helicobacter stool antigen kit (HpSA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid urease test (RUT)] for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in stools or gastric biopsy specimens collected from eight dogs suffering from gastritis. The gastroscopic biopsy specimens were tested using RUT and PCR, while stool specimens were evaluated using both HpSA and PCR. DNAs from the gastric biopsies and stool specimens were analyzed by both a consensus PCR that amplified the RNA polymerase beta-subunit-coding gene (rpoB) of Helicobacter spp. and a species-specific PCR to amplify the urease B gene of Helicobacter heilmannii, Helicobacter pylori, and Helicobacter felis. Helicobacter spp. were detected in 62.5% of the dogs, while H. heilmannii and H. felis were identified in 37.5 and 25% of the dogs, respectively. The HpSA did not efficiently detect Helicobacter spp. in the stool samples compared to the RUT and PCR assays, both of which successfully detected Helicobacter spp. in the two sample types. Finally, we recommend that consensus PCR with stool specimens could be used before the species-specific PCR for identifying Helicobacter species in laboratory dogs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4490150
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Korean Association for Laboratory Animal Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44901502015-07-07 Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs Hong, Sunhwa Chung, Yungho Kang, Won-Guk Choi, Yeon-Shik Kim, Okjin Lab Anim Res Original Article A number of Helicobacter species may confound experimental data because of their association with disease progressing in various kinds of laboratory animals. Screening of Helicobacter species is particularly desirable, because they are prevalent in commercial and research animal facilities. The aim of the present study was to compare three diagnostic methods [e.g. Helicobacter stool antigen kit (HpSA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid urease test (RUT)] for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in stools or gastric biopsy specimens collected from eight dogs suffering from gastritis. The gastroscopic biopsy specimens were tested using RUT and PCR, while stool specimens were evaluated using both HpSA and PCR. DNAs from the gastric biopsies and stool specimens were analyzed by both a consensus PCR that amplified the RNA polymerase beta-subunit-coding gene (rpoB) of Helicobacter spp. and a species-specific PCR to amplify the urease B gene of Helicobacter heilmannii, Helicobacter pylori, and Helicobacter felis. Helicobacter spp. were detected in 62.5% of the dogs, while H. heilmannii and H. felis were identified in 37.5 and 25% of the dogs, respectively. The HpSA did not efficiently detect Helicobacter spp. in the stool samples compared to the RUT and PCR assays, both of which successfully detected Helicobacter spp. in the two sample types. Finally, we recommend that consensus PCR with stool specimens could be used before the species-specific PCR for identifying Helicobacter species in laboratory dogs. Korean Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2015-06 2015-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4490150/ /pubmed/26155203 http://dx.doi.org/10.5625/lar.2015.31.2.86 Text en Copyright © 2015 Korean Association for Laboratory Animal Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hong, Sunhwa
Chung, Yungho
Kang, Won-Guk
Choi, Yeon-Shik
Kim, Okjin
Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
title Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
title_full Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
title_fullStr Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
title_short Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
title_sort comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490150/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26155203
http://dx.doi.org/10.5625/lar.2015.31.2.86
work_keys_str_mv AT hongsunhwa comparisonofthreediagnosticassaysfortheidentificationofhelicobactersppinlaboratorydogs
AT chungyungho comparisonofthreediagnosticassaysfortheidentificationofhelicobactersppinlaboratorydogs
AT kangwonguk comparisonofthreediagnosticassaysfortheidentificationofhelicobactersppinlaboratorydogs
AT choiyeonshik comparisonofthreediagnosticassaysfortheidentificationofhelicobactersppinlaboratorydogs
AT kimokjin comparisonofthreediagnosticassaysfortheidentificationofhelicobactersppinlaboratorydogs