JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Funke, G.
Right arrow Articles by Riegel, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Funke, G.
Right arrow Articles by Riegel, P.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Dec 1997, 3122-3126, Vol 35, No. 12
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Multicenter evaluation of the updated and extended API (RAPID) Coryne database 2.0 [In Process Citation]

G Funke, FN Renaud, J Freney and P Riegel
Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Zurich, Switzerland. funke@immv.unizh.ch

In a multicenter study, 407 strains of coryneform bacteria were tested with the updated and extended API (RAPID) Coryne system with database 2.0 (bioMerieux, La-Balme-les-Grottes, France) in order to evaluate the system's capability of identifying these bacteria. The design of the system was exactly the same as for the previous API (RAPID) Coryne strip with database 1.0, i.e., the 20 biochemical reactions covered were identical, but database 2.0 included both more taxa and additional differential tests. Three hundred ninety strains tested belonged to the 49 taxa covered by database 2.0, and 17 strains belonged to taxa not covered. Overall, the system correctly identified 90.5% of the strains belonging to taxa included, with additional tests needed for correct identification for 55.1% of all strains tested. Only 5.6% of all strains were not identified, and 3.8% were misidentified. Identification problems were observed in particular for Corynebacterium coyleae, Propionibacterium acnes, and Aureobacterium spp. The numerical profiles and corresponding identification results for the taxa not covered by the new database 2.0 were also given. In comparison to the results from published previous evaluations of the API (RAPID) Coryne database 1.0, more additional tests had to be performed with version 2.0 in order to completely identify the strains. This was the result of current changes in taxonomy and to provide for organisms described since the appearance of version 1.0. We conclude that the new API (RAPID) Coryne system 2.0 is a useful tool for identifying the diverse group of coryneform bacteria encountered in the routine clinical laboratory.


This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.