Techniques for the Detection and Identification of Pathogenic Bacteria

Takanori Kawamoto^*
*Correspondence: Takanori Kawamoto, Department of Molecular Pathobiology and Cell Adhesion Biology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu, Japan, Email:

Editorial

In order to slacken the rate of development of antibacterial resistance, the causative agent must be linked as fleetly as possible, so that directed patient treatment and/ or contact preventives can be initiated. This review highlights the challenges associated with the discovery and identification of pathogenic bacteria, by furnishing an preface to the ways presently used, as well as newer ways that are in development. Fastening on the chemical base for these ways, the review also provides a comparison of their advantages and disadvantages.

Biochemical testing

The maturity of clinical microbiology laboratories still calculate on culture for the discovery of utmost bacterial pathogens from clinical samples. Traditionally, culture is performed using general purpose agar- predicated media (e.g. blood agar) that will support the growth of a wide range of pathogens [1]. Each type of colony that is recovered is also excavated to identify likely pathogens. For the discovery of certain pathogens, it's essential to use more specific culture media. For illustration, ‘discriminative’ media target differences in the metabolic exertion of bacteria utilising biochemical indicator systems (e.g. the incorporation of a sugar( nutrition) plus a pH indicator (to sense metabolites digested nutrient) to indicate the likely presence of a specific pathogen [2]. Culture media may also be ‘picky’ (by incorporation of antimicrobials) to reduce the amount of commensal§ leafage suitable to grow and thereby increase the liability of separating a particular target pathogen. For illustration, to isolate Salmonella from a excreta sample that may contain dozens of other species, it's essential to use a culture medium that is both picky (e.g. by the use of antimicrobials analogous as cefsulodin and novobiocin) and discriminative by detecting hydrogen sulfide product or specific enzymes.

automated After sequestration, rubric and species position identification is carried out, for which commercially available panels of biochemical tests are constantly employed; these generally include sugars to descry acidification( via oxidation or fermentation) using a pH indicator. Other tests included in analogous panels may target enzymes involved in amino acid metabolism (e.g. decarboxylases, deaminase, tryptophanase) or hydrolase enzymes, analogous as urease and β- galactosidase. The inoculation and reading of biochemical panels can be performed manually using marketable paraphernalia analogous as Analytical Profile Index paraphernalia. Increasingly, analogous testing is automated and there are a variety of commercially available instruments that perform automated inoculation and reading of biochemical panels analogous as the BD Phoenix or the Vitek 2 instruments. For some species, analogous systems can achieve bacterial identification in 2-3 h, as well as performing automated antimicrobial vulnerability testing [3].

Hybridization-based detection

Hybridization- grounded discovery provides a means of revealing the presence or absence of genes of interest. The examinations are single or double stranded synthetic DNA fractions labelled with fluorescent colorings (e.g., Cy3 9 or FITC 10) which, due to their complementarity to the target nucleic acid, allow for hybridization. A fluorescent signal therefore indicates the presence of the analyte. For illustration, luminescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH), using bacterial and incentive universal examinations, was suitable to identify 96.5 of the microorganisms present in 115 bacteraemia cases down to the family, rubric or species position within 2.5 h [4]. Although the assessment of the samples needed bitsy observation and had a discovery limit of 103 CFU per mL blood, the time saving achieved (in comparison to conventional styles) can be lifesaving in cases similar as septicaemia. This approach was acclimated using peptide nucleic acid luminescence in situ hybridisation (PNAFISH, AdvanDx) for the identification of Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria, as well as Candida species, from blood societies. By targeting around 10 groups of the most generally reported pathogens intertwined in nosocomial bloodstream infections, the delicacy of this system was shown to be 100 for bacteria and 91 for incentive in samples with at least 105 CFU per mL present [5].

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Davies, Sally C., Tom Fowler, John Watson and David Walker. "Annual report of the chief medical officer: infection and the rise of antimicrobial resistance." Lancet 381 (2013): 1606-1609.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Kobayashi, Scott D., Natalia Malachowa, and Frank R. DeLeo. "Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus abscesses." Am J Pathol 185 (2015): 1518-1527.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Sabaté Brescó, Marina, Llinos G. Harris, Keith Thompson and T. Fintan Moriarty. "Pathogenic mechanisms and host interactions in Staphylococcus epidermidis device-related infection." Front Microbiol 8 (2017): 1401

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Zeller, Valérie, Younes Kerroumi, Vanina Meyssonnier, and Simon Marmor. "Analysis of postoperative and hematogenous prosthetic joint-infection microbiological patterns in a large cohort." J Infect 76 (2018): 328-334.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Proctor, Richard A, Christof Von Eiff, Barbara C. Kahl and Georg Peters. "Small colony variants: A pathogenic form of bacteria that facilitates persistent and recurrent infections." Nat Rev Microbiol 4 (2006): 295-305.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at