Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Veterinary Research / 2019 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Some Bacterial Identification Methods

Sayfa
9–12
Yayın Tarihi
2019-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In addition, it was thought that it would be useful to evaluate the identification of biotypes obtained from clinical isolates by similar methods.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: In this study, three different methods were compared for the identification of some Gram positive and Gram negative reference bacteria.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: For this purpose the identification accuracy rates of Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Streptococcus agalactiae, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhimurium, Serratia marcescens were analysed by conventional bacteriological methods, commercial bacterial identification test kit (Microgen™ ID) and automated bacteria identification system (BD Phoenix 100™).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition, it was thought that it would be useful to evaluate the identification of biotypes obtained from clinical isolates by similar methods.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Bacteria · Identification · Conventional methods

Abstract

Objective: In this study, three different methods were compared for the identification of some Gram positive and Gram negative reference bacteria. Materials and Methods: For this purpose the identification accuracy rates of Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Streptococcus agalactiae, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhimurium, Serratia marcescens were analysed by conventional bacteriological methods, commercial bacterial identification test kit (Microgen™ ID) and automated bacteria identification system (BD Phoenix 100™). Results: As a result of analyses, the identification accuracy rates of examined cultures were 94.5%, 95.2%, 94.6%, 89.6%, 91.1%, 92.5%, 86.9%, 96.4% by conventional bacteriological methods, 93.84%, 89.2%, 98.86%, 96.55%, 97.98%, 95.43%, 86.69%, 92.39% by commercial bacterial identification test kit and 98%, 99%, 99%, 96%, 96%, 97%, 99%, 98% by automated bacteria identification system, respectively. Conclusion: In comparison of methods, the identification accuracy values obtained from the automated system were higher than the other methods. It was concluded that automated identification systems that developed for accurate, reliable and rapid identification of bacteria, could be used as an alternative to conventional methods and commercial kits. In addition, it was thought that it would be useful to evaluate the identification of biotypes obtained from clinical isolates by similar methods.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GÜLAYDIN, Ö., EKİN, İ. H., ÖZTÜRK, C., İLHAN, Z., ÖĞÜN, E. (2019). Comparison of Some Bacterial Identification Methods. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Research, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 9–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/809798

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (4)

  1. Arda M (2006). Temel Mikrobiyoloji, 3. Baskı, 80-102,
  2. Medisan Yayınları,
  3. Ankara.Barenfanger J, Drake C, Kacich G (1999). Clinical and financial benefits of rapid bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J Clin Microbiol, 37 (5):1415-1418.Berktaş M (2009). Otomatize tanımlama sistemleri tanımlamada artıları ve eksileri. Klinik Mikrobiyoloji Uzmanlığı ve Laboratuvar Uygulamaları Sempozyumu, 23-24 Ekim 2009
  4. Ankara.Blankenfeld-Enkvist GV, Brannback M (2002). Technological trends and needs in food diagnostics. Technol Review, 132/2002.Carroll KC, Glanz BD, Borek AP, Burger C, Bhally HS, Henciak S, Flayhart D (2006). Evaluation of the BD Phoenix Automated Microbiology System for Identification and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Enterobacteriaceae, J Clin Microbiol, 44 (10), 3506-3509.Carter GR (1984). Diagnostic Procedurs in Veterinary Bacteriology and Mycology. Fourth edition. Springfield,Illinois, USA.Felmingham D, Brown DFJ (2001). Instrumentation in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J Antimicrobial Chemother, 48 (Suppl 1): 81-85.Ferraro MJ, Jorgenson JH (1999). Manual of clinical microbiology, susceptibility testing instrumentation and computirized expert sysytems for data analysis and interpretation. In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Pfalller MA, Tenover FC and Yolken RH (eds). 7th ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, pp:1539-600.Fung DYC (2002). Rapid methods and automation in microbiology. Compreh Rev Food Sci Food Safety, 1: 3-21.Fung DYC (2006). Rapid methods and automation in microbiology: 25 years of development and predictions. Bull Tech U Ist, 54 (4): 45-55.Gülaydın Ö (2018). Sığırların solunum yolundan izole edilen Pasteurella multocida fenotip ve genotiplerinde virülens genlerin dağılımı. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi, Van.Koneman EW, Allen SD, Dowel VR, Janda WM, Sommers HM, Winn WC (1988). Color Atlas and Text Book of Diagnostic Microbiology. Third edition. Lippincott Comp. Philadelphia, USA.Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, Schreckenberger PC, Winn WC (1997). Guidelines for the collection, transport, processing, analysis and reporting of cultures from specific specimen sources. In: Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, Schreckenberger PC, Winn WC (eds). Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. 5th ed. New York: Lippincott Philadelphia, pp:121-70.Layer F, Ghebremedhin B, Moder KA, König W, König B (2006). Comparative study using