Cargando…

Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?

Bacteria can be associated with male infertility. Antibacterial substances (e.g., zinc-containing proteins, antimicrobial peptides) in ejaculates might impair the growth of bacteria in culture. We therefore wanted to test if removing antibacterial substances by washing the ejaculate could improve th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Theiler, Tom, Olaru, Ioana Diana, Kilzer, Charlotte, Schuler, Franziska, Schaumburg, Frieder
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Microbiology 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9769719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36321892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.03269-22
_version_ 1784854432603701248
author Theiler, Tom
Olaru, Ioana Diana
Kilzer, Charlotte
Schuler, Franziska
Schaumburg, Frieder
author_facet Theiler, Tom
Olaru, Ioana Diana
Kilzer, Charlotte
Schuler, Franziska
Schaumburg, Frieder
author_sort Theiler, Tom
collection PubMed
description Bacteria can be associated with male infertility. Antibacterial substances (e.g., zinc-containing proteins, antimicrobial peptides) in ejaculates might impair the growth of bacteria in culture. We therefore wanted to test if removing antibacterial substances by washing the ejaculate could improve the detection of bacteria in culture. All ejaculates from patients ≥18 years old, which were obtained for routine diagnostics to assess male infertility were included in this study (no exclusion criteria were applied). Test samples were diluted with 2 mL sterile 0.45% saline, vortexed, and centrifuged (5 min; 7.5 × g). After the removal of 2 mL of the supernatant and resuspension, 10 μL of the pellet was used for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Control samples were cultured identically but without washing. Species identification was done with matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry. A total of 186 samples were included. The data set was stratified into five groups (Gram-negative rods [GNR], anaerobes [AN], Enterococcus spp. [EC], coagulase-negative staphylococci [CNS], and viridans streptococci [VS]). Compared to the control arm, the test arm revealed significant lower proportions for CNS (59.1% versus 44.6%, P < 0.01) and VS (53.8% versus 41.9%, P = 0.03). Similarly, slightly lower proportions of GNR (16.1% versus 15.1%, P = 0.89), AN (19.9% versus 17.2%, P = 0.5), and EC (25.3% versus 23.1%, P = 0.63) were observed. The medians of CFU were lower in test samples compared to the control samples (6.5 × 10(3) versus 2.5 × 10(3), P < 0.01) for any bacterial growth. Lower colony counts were also observed for individual bacterial groups. In conclusion, preculture washing of ejaculates results in a decrease in total bacteria count and culture-positive samples. IMPORTANCE This study compares two methods for processing ejaculate samples from men undergoing investigations for infertility. The method of sample washing and centrifugation was compared to the standard method of direct inoculation and culture. The study hypothesis was that preprocessing of samples may increase bacterial yield by removing bactericidal substances from semen. However, we found that washing ejaculate samples before microbiological culture did not improve the detection of bacteria and led to a reduction in colony counts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9769719
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Society for Microbiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97697192022-12-22 Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash? Theiler, Tom Olaru, Ioana Diana Kilzer, Charlotte Schuler, Franziska Schaumburg, Frieder Microbiol Spectr Observation Bacteria can be associated with male infertility. Antibacterial substances (e.g., zinc-containing proteins, antimicrobial peptides) in ejaculates might impair the growth of bacteria in culture. We therefore wanted to test if removing antibacterial substances by washing the ejaculate could improve the detection of bacteria in culture. All ejaculates from patients ≥18 years old, which were obtained for routine diagnostics to assess male infertility were included in this study (no exclusion criteria were applied). Test samples were diluted with 2 mL sterile 0.45% saline, vortexed, and centrifuged (5 min; 7.5 × g). After the removal of 2 mL of the supernatant and resuspension, 10 μL of the pellet was used for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Control samples were cultured identically but without washing. Species identification was done with matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry. A total of 186 samples were included. The data set was stratified into five groups (Gram-negative rods [GNR], anaerobes [AN], Enterococcus spp. [EC], coagulase-negative staphylococci [CNS], and viridans streptococci [VS]). Compared to the control arm, the test arm revealed significant lower proportions for CNS (59.1% versus 44.6%, P < 0.01) and VS (53.8% versus 41.9%, P = 0.03). Similarly, slightly lower proportions of GNR (16.1% versus 15.1%, P = 0.89), AN (19.9% versus 17.2%, P = 0.5), and EC (25.3% versus 23.1%, P = 0.63) were observed. The medians of CFU were lower in test samples compared to the control samples (6.5 × 10(3) versus 2.5 × 10(3), P < 0.01) for any bacterial growth. Lower colony counts were also observed for individual bacterial groups. In conclusion, preculture washing of ejaculates results in a decrease in total bacteria count and culture-positive samples. IMPORTANCE This study compares two methods for processing ejaculate samples from men undergoing investigations for infertility. The method of sample washing and centrifugation was compared to the standard method of direct inoculation and culture. The study hypothesis was that preprocessing of samples may increase bacterial yield by removing bactericidal substances from semen. However, we found that washing ejaculate samples before microbiological culture did not improve the detection of bacteria and led to a reduction in colony counts. American Society for Microbiology 2022-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9769719/ /pubmed/36321892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.03269-22 Text en Copyright © 2022 Theiler et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Observation
Theiler, Tom
Olaru, Ioana Diana
Kilzer, Charlotte
Schuler, Franziska
Schaumburg, Frieder
Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?
title Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?
title_full Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?
title_fullStr Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?
title_full_unstemmed Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?
title_short Ejaculate for Microbiological Culture: To Wash or Not To Wash?
title_sort ejaculate for microbiological culture: to wash or not to wash?
topic Observation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9769719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36321892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.03269-22
work_keys_str_mv AT theilertom ejaculateformicrobiologicalculturetowashornottowash
AT olaruioanadiana ejaculateformicrobiologicalculturetowashornottowash
AT kilzercharlotte ejaculateformicrobiologicalculturetowashornottowash
AT schulerfranziska ejaculateformicrobiologicalculturetowashornottowash
AT schaumburgfrieder ejaculateformicrobiologicalculturetowashornottowash