4.7 Article

Comparative analyses of phenotypic and genotypic methods for detection of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli toxins and colonization factors

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 3295-3301

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00471-07

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC is one of the main causes of childhood diarrhea in developing countries and in travelers. However, this pathogen has often not been reported in surveys of diarrheal pathogens, due to lack of simple standardized methods to detect ETEC in many laboratories. ETEC expresses one or both of two different enterotoxin subtypes: heat-stable toxins, a heat-labile toxin (LT), and more than 22 different colonization factors (CFs) that mediate adherence to the intestinal cell wall. Here we compare established phenotypic and genotypic detection methods and newly developed PCR detection methods with respect to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and ease of performance. The methods include GM1-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and dot blot techniques using specific monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) for phenotypic detection of the toxins and CFs, respectively, as well as different PCR and DNA/DNA hybridization techniques, including new PCR assays, for genotypic identification of the toxin and CF genes, respectively. We found very good general agreement in results derived from genotypic and phenotypic methods. In a few strains, LT and CFs were identified genetically but not phenotypically. Based on our analyses, we recommend initial screening for ETEC in clinical samples by multiplex toxin gene PCR. Toxin-positive strains may then be analyzed by dot blot tests for detection of the CFs expressed on the bacterial surface and by PCR for determination of additional CFs for which MAbs are currently lacking as well as for strains that harbor silent CF genes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available