Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Methods for Detection of Diphtheria Toxin among Isolates of Pathogenic Corynebacteria

Efstratiou, Androulla; Engler, Kathryn H.; Dawes, Charlotte S.; Sesardic, Dorothea

doi:10.1128/jcm.36.11.3173-3177.1998

Cited by 72 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the Elek test for diphtheria toxin production was negative for C. ulcerans CVUAS 4292 and CVUAS 5160. Both isolates share this feature ‐ PCR detection of tox genes but an apparent lack of expression thereof ‐ with other strains of C. ulcerans (Sing et al., 2003; Cassiday et al., 2008; RKI, 2008) as well as C. diphtheriae (Efstratiou et al.,1998), respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Corynebacterium ulcerans from Diseased Wild Boars

Contzen

Sting

Blazey

et al. 2011

Zoonoses and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two Corynebacterium strains were isolated from lymph nodes of wild boars showing severe alterations caused by caseous lymphadenitis. The wild boars came from different districts in southern Germany; one was found dead, the other had been shot. The two Corynebacterium strains obtained were both positive for phospholipase D. Further analysis of biochemical profiles did not allow unambiguous differentiation between Corynebacterium ulcerans and Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis. Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy as well as partial sequencing of the genes for 16S rRNA and RNA polymerase beta subunit (rpoB) clearly identified both strains as Corynebacterium ulcerans. The tox gene for diphtheria toxin (DT) could be detected in both porcine isolates by PCR. Partial DNA sequencing of this tox gene showed significant differences from sequences described for other Corynebacterium ulcerans strains and a higher degree of similarity to that of Corynebacterium diphtheria. Production of diphtheria toxin could not be detected. These results indicate that wild game could be a reservoir for zoonotic Corynebacterium ulcerans.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Corynebacterium ulcerans from Diseased Wild Boars

Contzen

Sting

Blazey

et al. 2011

Zoonoses and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rapid methods such as PCR have improved the identification of the diphtheria toxin gene [15]. Not all PCRpositive strains of C. diphtheriae have a biologically active tox gene and express phenotypically the toxin [18]. Nevertheless, tox gene-positive but non-toxigenic strains of C. ulcerans have, so far, not been documented [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rare human skin infection with Corynebacterium ulcerans: transmission by a domestic cat

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corynebacterium ulcerans is mainly known for its ability to cause animal infections. Some strains of C. ulcerans produce diphtheria toxin, which can cause life-threatening cardiopathies and neuropathies in humans. Human cutaneous C. ulcerans infection is a very rare disease that mimics classical cutaneous diphtheria. We present a very rare case of a C. ulcerans skin infection caused by a non-diphtheria toxin-producing strain of C. ulcerans that resolved after 3 weeks of therapy with amoxicillin-clavulanate. A pet cat was the probable source of infection. The presence of C. ulcerans in the mouth of the cat was confirmed by 16S rRNA gene analysis and the API Coryne system. In cases of human infection with potentially toxigenic corynebacteria, it is important to determine the species and examine the isolate for diphtheria toxin production. If toxigenicity is present, diphtheria antitoxin should be administered immediately. Carriers and potential infectious sources of C. ulcerans include not only domestic livestock but also pet animals. For the primary prevention of disease caused by diphtheria toxin-producing corynebacteria, vaccination with diphtheria toxoid is recommended.

show abstract

“…Toxin production can be investigated using in vitro Elek test (conventional or modified), in vitro Vero cell cytotoxicity assays or in vivo guinea pig test (Efstratiou and Maple ; Efstratiou et al . ). However, guinea pig test is not recommended currently, as according to European regulations (Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes) test with animals should not be performed when an alternative in vitro assay is developed.…”

Section: Culture Media and Conventional Diagnostic Testsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Contemporary microbiology and identification ofCorynebacteriaspp. causing infections in human

Zasada

Mosiej

2018

Lett Appl Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significance and Impact of the Study: The number of opportunistic infections caused by Corynebacteria is increasing due to increase in number of immunocompromised patients. New Corynebacterium species and new human infections, caused by this group of bacteria, has been described recently. However, identification of Corynebacteria is still a challenge despite application of sophisticated laboratory methods. In the study we present possibilities and limitations of various commercial systems for identification of Corynebacteria. AbstractThe Corynebacterium is a genus of bacteria of growing clinical importance. Progress in medicine results in growing population of immunocompromised patients and growing number of infections caused by opportunistic pathogens. A new infections caused by new Corynebacterium species and species previously regarded as commensal micro-organisms have been described. Parallel with changes in Corynebacteria infections, the microbiological laboratory diagnostic possibilities are changing. But identification of this group of bacteria to the species level remains difficult. In the paper, we present various manual, semiautomated and automated assays used in clinical laboratories for Corynebacterium identification, such as API Coryne, RapID CB Plus, BBL Crystal Gram Positive ID System, MICRONAUT-RPO, VITEK 2, BD Phoenix System, Sherlock Microbial ID System, MicroSeq Microbial Identification System, Biolog Microbial Identification Systems, MALDI-TOF MS systems, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based and sequencing-based assays. The presented assays are based on various properties, like biochemical tests, specific DNA sequences, composition of cellular fatty acids, protein profiles and have specific limitations.

show abstract

Comparison of Phenotypic and Genotypic Methods for Detection of Diphtheria Toxin among Isolates of Pathogenic Corynebacteria

Cited by 72 publications

References 15 publications

Corynebacterium ulcerans from Diseased Wild Boars

Corynebacterium ulcerans from Diseased Wild Boars

Rare human skin infection with Corynebacterium ulcerans: transmission by a domestic cat

Contemporary microbiology and identification ofCorynebacteriaspp. causing infections in human

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About