Evaluation of MicroScan for identification of Enterococcus species

Tritz, Denise M.; Iwen, Peter C.; Woods, Gail L.

doi:10.1128/jcm.28.6.1477-1478.1990

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 398 Enterococcus isolates tested, MicroScan panels correctly identified 342 of an error rate of 8.6%, which is similar to that reported by others (1,24). The 56 misidentified species were not included in the present MicroScan data management system.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…One of four E. hirae isolates was distinguished from E. durans isolates by the ability to ferment raffinose on the MicroScan panel. It has previously been shown that 75 to 85% of E. hirae strains ferment both raffinose and sucrose whereas E. durans does not ferment either sugar (24). The addition of sucrose fermentation testing helped distinguish three of four E. hirae isolates from the raffinose-negative E. durans isolates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The ability to accurately identify enterococci at the species level is important not only for epidemiological purposes but also to recognize species such as E. faecium and the motile enterococci, which tend to show resistance to antimicrobial agents commonly used for therapy. Automated systems, such as the Vitek system and both the conventional and rapid Mi-croScan systems, are reported to provide accurate identification for both E. faecalis and E. faecium; however, they are not considered reliable for the identification of the other Enterococcus species (1,2,18,24,26). In addition, using automated systems to perform susceptibility testing of enterococci for antimicrobial agents, such as ampicillin, vancomycin, and the aminoglycosides, has had conflicting results (13, 21-23, 26, 27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Automated systems, including the Vitek and MicroScan systems, have been developed to identify and to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of enterococci (1,2,18,22,23,(25)(26)(27)(28). Previous studies have shown conventional MicroScan panels to be reliable in the identification of Enterococcus spe-cies, even though the data bank includes only E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. durans, and E. avium (24). There are, however, conflicting reports on the reliability of the MicroScan system to detect ampicillin-and vancomycin-resistant strains of Enterococcus species (13,22,23,27).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Revised approach for identification and detection of ampicillin and vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus species by using MicroScan panels

et al. 1996

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The frequency of antimicrobial agent-resistant enterococci is increasing, making accurate identification and screening for susceptibility essential. We evaluated the ability of MicroScan Positive Breakpoint Combo Type 6 panels (Dade MicroScan Inc., West Sacramento, Calif.) to identify Enterococcus species and to detect ampicillin and vancomycin resistance. A total of 398 well-characterized Enterococcus isolates from two institutions were inoculated into MicroScan panels, into conventional biochemical assays, and into ampicillin and vancomycin agar dilution media. Resistance was verified by the broth macrodilution method. MicroScan panels accurately detected resistance to ampicillin in 132 of 132 enterococcal isolates, while three isolates for which the MICs were <16 g/ml were classified incorrectly by MicroScan panels as resistant. No beta-lactamaseproducing enterococci were detected. All 64 isolates showing resistance to vancomycin (MICs >32 g/ml) were correctly classified by MicroScan panels. Seven isolates for which the vancomycin MICs were 8 and 16 g/ml were incorrectly classified as susceptible by MicroScan panels, while eight isolates for which the MICs were 4 g/ml were incorrectly labeled as intermediate. Fourteen of these 15 isolates were subsequently identified as motile enterococci. Overall, there were three major errors in susceptibility testing for ampicillin and 15 minor errors for vancomycin. Conventional testing confirmed the identity of 181 Enterococcus faecalis isolates, 157 E. faecium isolates, and 60 isolates of other species; however, 56 of these 60 isolates were misidentified by the MicroScan panels. After recognition of this problem, a reviased approach which included tests for pigment, motility, and sucrose fermentation was devised. In combination with these additional assays, the conventional MicroScan panels accurately identified the 56 originally misidentified isolates. In summary, the ability of MicroScan panels to detect vancomycin and ampicillin resistance in enterococci was confirmed. Our study found that the inability of MicroScan panels to identify enterococci other than E. faecalis and E. faecium can be compensated for by the addition of standard assays.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revised approach for identification and detection of ampicillin and vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus species by using MicroScan panels

et al. 1996

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The preparation and inoculation of the RapID STR and MictoScan panels were earried out as recomtnended by the manufaeturers. Appelbaum et al (1), using the RapID STR kit system, and Tritz et al (37), using the MicroScan Giatn Positive panels, showed excellent reproducibility and correct species identification of 94% of Enteroeoeeus species. Enteroeocci exhibited relatively large (3.0-4.0 tntn in diatneter), shiny, grey-white, non-adherent, catalasenegative, fiat, circular surface colonies with slightly irregular edges and variable hetnolysis on the anaerobically incubated brucella blood agar plates.…”

Section: Microbiai Culturing and Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enterococci in human periodontitis

Rams

Feik

Young

et al. 1992

Oral Microbiology and Immunology

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enterococci are potential pathogens in many human body sites. This study determined the subgingival occurrence and the in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of enterococci in 100 persons with early-onset periodontitis and 545 persons with advanced adult periodontitis. Subgingival microbial samples were collected with paper points, transported in VMGA III and plated onto anaerobic enriched brucella blood agar or selective Enterococcosel agar (BBL Microbiology Systems). Enterococcal speciation was performed using commercial micromethod kit systems. In vitro sensitivity was determined using a commercial kit system and an agar dilution assay. Subgingival enterococci occurred in 1% of early-onset periodontitis patients and in approximately 5% of adult periodontitis patients. Enterococcus faecalis was the only enterococcal species recovered, and all but one isolate belonged to the same biotype. In vitro antimicrobial sensitivity testing revealed subgingival enterococci resistant to therapeutic levels of penicillin G, tetracycline, clindamycin and metronidazole, but relatively sensitive to ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate (Augmentin). Enterococci may populate periodontal pockets as superinfecting organisms and, in heavily infected patients, may contribute to periodontal breakdown.

show abstract

Systems for Identification of Bacteria and Fungi

Heaton,

Bhatti

2023

ClinMicroNow

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A proteomics‐based approach, matrix‐assisted laser desorption ionization‐time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI‐TOF MS), was introduced in clinical microbiology laboratories between 2005 and 2010 as a highly reliable and much more rapid method for identifying bacteria and yeast. Advances in molecular tools have allowed proteomics and genomics to have a substantial role in the identification of bacteria and yeast in clinical laboratories. In many laboratories, MALDI‐TOF MS has become the primary method for bacteria and yeast identification, supplanting biochemical analysis, including automated methods. DNA target sequencing may be performed on organisms growing in pure culture. This is typically performed when automated systems in the laboratory are unable to yield an identification or they provide an unusual identification or one that conflicts with phenotypic characteristics. The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning has made its way into the clinical microbiology laboratory, largely due to the digitization of microbiology and increasing technology use.

show abstract

Evaluation of MicroScan for identification of Enterococcus species

Cited by 22 publications

References 17 publications

Revised approach for identification and detection of ampicillin and vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus species by using MicroScan panels

Revised approach for identification and detection of ampicillin and vancomycin resistance in Enterococcus species by using MicroScan panels

Enterococci in human periodontitis

Systems for Identification of Bacteria and Fungi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About