IntroductionRobinsoniella peoriensis was recently identified as a Gram-positive, spore-forming, anaerobic bacillus originally isolated from swine manure storage pits. Seven isolates have been subsequently reported from human sources.Case presentationWe report the case of an infection caused by R. peoriensis in a 45-year-old Caucasian woman after posterior instrumentation correction of idiopathic thoracolumbar scoliosis. The identification was made by culture of samples inoculated onto blood agar and chocolate agar and was confirmed by 16 S ribosomal ribonucleic acid gene sequencing.ConclusionsWe discuss similar cases suggesting that R. peoriensis is responsible for health care-associated infections with the colonic flora as a potential source of infection.

No abstract

Background Non-invasive molecular analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) became a sensitive biomarker for monitoring organ transplantation or for detection of fetal DNA (cffDNA) in noninvasive prenatal test. In this study, we compared the efficiencies of four (semi)-automated cfDNA isolation instruments using their respective isolation kit: MagNA Pure 24 (Roche®), IDEAL (IDSolution®), LABTurbo 24 (Taigen®) and Chemagic 360 (Perkin Elmer®). The cfDNA was isolated from 5 plasma samples and the Rhesus D (RhD)-cffDNA from 5 maternal plasmas. The cfDNA were quantified by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR), BIABooster system and QUBIT fluorometer. The cfDNA fragment size profiles were assessed by BIABooster system. Chimerism were quantified by home-made ddPCR and Devyser NGS kit. RhD-cffDNA in maternal plasma were detected between weeks 14 and 24 of amenorrhea using free DNA Fetal RHD Kit® (Biorad®). Results Statistical tests have shown differences in DNA yield depending on the isolation procedure and quantification method used. Magna Pure isolates smaller cfDNA fragment size than other extraction methods (90% ± 9% vs. 74% ± 8%; p = 0.009). Chimerism was only reliable from LABTurbo 24 extractions using the NGS but not with ddPCR whatever extraction methods. RhD-cffDNA were detected by all isolation methods, although IDEAL and LABTurbo 24 systems seemed more efficient. Conclusions This comparative study showed a dependency of cfDNA yield depending on isolation procedure and quantification method used. In total, these results suggest that the choice of pre-analytical isolation systems needs to be carefully validated in routine clinical practice.