2014
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01432-14
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bacteriophage-Based Latex Agglutination Test for Rapid Identification of Staphylococcus aureus

Abstract: e Rapid diagnosis is essential for the management of Staphylococcus aureus infections. A host recognition protein from S. aureus bacteriophage phiSLT was recombinantly produced and used to coat streptavidin latex beads to develop a latex agglutination test (LAT). The diagnostic accuracy of this bacteriophage-based test was compared with that of a conventional LAT, Pastorex StaphPlus, by investigating a clinical collection of 86 S. aureus isolates and 128 coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) from deep tissue… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several Staphylococcus species, such as Staphylococcus epidermis (S. epidermis), Staphylococcus haemolyticus (S. haemolyticus), and the coagulase negative species, have been isolated from ewe's milk and were found to produce one or several staphylococcus enterotoxins [2] and consequently there is a need for methods to specifically discriminate S. aureus from other staphylococci and non-staphylococci as quickly as possible. Conventional identification methods and novel assays based on immunofluorescence probe, DNA microarray, surface enhanced laser desorption and ionization time of flight mass spectrometry, and whole-cell SELEX methods are time-consuming and may yield false-positive or false-negative results, and misclassifications with automated susceptibility testing systems or commercially available latex agglutination kits have been reported recently [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several Staphylococcus species, such as Staphylococcus epidermis (S. epidermis), Staphylococcus haemolyticus (S. haemolyticus), and the coagulase negative species, have been isolated from ewe's milk and were found to produce one or several staphylococcus enterotoxins [2] and consequently there is a need for methods to specifically discriminate S. aureus from other staphylococci and non-staphylococci as quickly as possible. Conventional identification methods and novel assays based on immunofluorescence probe, DNA microarray, surface enhanced laser desorption and ionization time of flight mass spectrometry, and whole-cell SELEX methods are time-consuming and may yield false-positive or false-negative results, and misclassifications with automated susceptibility testing systems or commercially available latex agglutination kits have been reported recently [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the field evaluation of 94TF-LAA produced 26 false positive results, including A. baumannii. Cross-reactivity has been observed before with phage-based LAAs, especially when identifying between species within the same genera (44). Misidentification of B. pseudomallei as Acinetobacter spp.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…After the filtration process, 99.5% of liquid is removed from the original water sample, yielding a 200-fold enrichment in sample concentration and accelerated immunochemistry reaction rate. Traditionally, immunoagglutination is only used in a qualitative test; however, together with the narrow beam technique, immunoagglutination offers a simple, generally applicable, and non-hazardous method for fast and bacterium-specific quantitative detection [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. More importantly, the agglutination reaction is a one-step reaction method mediated by specific reactions between antibodies immobilized on microbeads and antigens in the sample, requiring no further washing steps prior to detection.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%