4.4 Article

Gemella bacteraemia characterised by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 9, Pages 690-693

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.56.9.690

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To define epidemiology, clinical disease, and outcome of gemella bacteraemia by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. To examine the usefulness of the Vitek, API, and ATB systems in identifying two gemella species. Methods: All a haemolytic streptococci other than Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated from blood cultures during a six year period were identified by conventional biochemical methods, the Vitek system, and the API system. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed on all isolates identified by both kits as gemella with greater than or equal to95% confidence or by either kit as any bacterial species with <95% confidence. The ATB expression system was used to identify the two isolates that were defined as gemella species by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Results: Of the 302 a haemolytic streptococci other than S pneumoniae isolated, one was identified as Gemella morbillorum and another as Gemella haemolysans by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The patient with monomicrobial G morbillorum bacteraemia was a 66 year old man with community acquired infective endocarditis with septic thromboemboli. The patient with G haemolysans bacteraemia was a 41 year old woman with hospital acquired polymicrobial bacteraemia during the neutropenic period of an autologous bone marrow transplant for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the first case of its kind in the English literature. The API and ATB expression systems only identified the second strain as G haemolysans at 94% and 99% confidence, respectively, whereas the Vitek system identified none of the two strains correctly at >70% confidence. Conclusions: Gemella bacteraemia is uncommon. 16S rRNA gene sequencing is the method of choice for identification of gemella and gemella-like isolates.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available