Cargando…

Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory

We evaluated the performance of 16S and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region amplification and sequencing of rDNA from clinical specimens, for the respective detection and identification of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Direct rDNA amplification of 16S and ITS targets from clinical samples was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Payne, Michael, Azana, Robert, Hoang, Linda M. N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4210129
_version_ 1782437163621679104
author Payne, Michael
Azana, Robert
Hoang, Linda M. N.
author_facet Payne, Michael
Azana, Robert
Hoang, Linda M. N.
author_sort Payne, Michael
collection PubMed
description We evaluated the performance of 16S and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region amplification and sequencing of rDNA from clinical specimens, for the respective detection and identification of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Direct rDNA amplification of 16S and ITS targets from clinical samples was performed over a 4-year period and reviewed. All specimens were from sterile sites and submitted to a reference laboratory for evaluation. Results of 16S and ITS were compared to histopathology, Gram and/or calcofluor stain microscopy results. A total of 277 16S tests were performed, with 64 (23%) positive for the presence of bacterial DNA. Identification of an organism was more likely in microscopy positive 16S samples 14/21 (67%), compared to 35/175 (20%) of microscopy negative samples. A total of 110 ITS tests were performed, with 14 (13%) positive. The yield of microscopy positive ITS samples, 9/44 (21%), was higher than microscopy negative samples 3/50 (6%). Given these findings, 16S and ITS are valuable options for culture negative specimens from sterile sites, particularly in the setting of positive microscopy findings. Where microscopy results are negative, the limited sensitivity of 16S and ITS in detecting and identifying an infectious agent needs to be considered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4904561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49045612016-06-30 Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory Payne, Michael Azana, Robert Hoang, Linda M. N. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Research Article We evaluated the performance of 16S and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region amplification and sequencing of rDNA from clinical specimens, for the respective detection and identification of bacterial and fungal pathogens. Direct rDNA amplification of 16S and ITS targets from clinical samples was performed over a 4-year period and reviewed. All specimens were from sterile sites and submitted to a reference laboratory for evaluation. Results of 16S and ITS were compared to histopathology, Gram and/or calcofluor stain microscopy results. A total of 277 16S tests were performed, with 64 (23%) positive for the presence of bacterial DNA. Identification of an organism was more likely in microscopy positive 16S samples 14/21 (67%), compared to 35/175 (20%) of microscopy negative samples. A total of 110 ITS tests were performed, with 14 (13%) positive. The yield of microscopy positive ITS samples, 9/44 (21%), was higher than microscopy negative samples 3/50 (6%). Given these findings, 16S and ITS are valuable options for culture negative specimens from sterile sites, particularly in the setting of positive microscopy findings. Where microscopy results are negative, the limited sensitivity of 16S and ITS in detecting and identifying an infectious agent needs to be considered. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4904561/ /pubmed/27366168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4210129 Text en Copyright © 2016 Michael Payne et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Payne, Michael
Azana, Robert
Hoang, Linda M. N.
Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory
title Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory
title_full Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory
title_fullStr Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory
title_full_unstemmed Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory
title_short Review of 16S and ITS Direct Sequencing Results for Clinical Specimens Submitted to a Reference Laboratory
title_sort review of 16s and its direct sequencing results for clinical specimens submitted to a reference laboratory
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4210129
work_keys_str_mv AT paynemichael reviewof16sanditsdirectsequencingresultsforclinicalspecimenssubmittedtoareferencelaboratory
AT azanarobert reviewof16sanditsdirectsequencingresultsforclinicalspecimenssubmittedtoareferencelaboratory
AT hoanglindamn reviewof16sanditsdirectsequencingresultsforclinicalspecimenssubmittedtoareferencelaboratory