4.7 Article

Rapid First- and Second-Line Drug Susceptibility Assay for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Isolates by Use of Quantitative PCR

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 69-75

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01500-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R41AI073072]
  2. University of Virginia Department of Medicine and Center for Global Health
  3. Virginia Department of Health
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI093358, R41AI073072] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The slow turnaround time for Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility results is a barrier to care. We developed a rapid quantitative PCR (qPCR)-based phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility test that utilizes amplification of the M. tuberculosis 16S rRNA gene after 3 days of incubation with antituberculosis drugs. To decrease background from killed organisms, we used propidium monoazide (PMA), a DNA-binding dye that penetrates damaged bacterial cells and renders DNA unamplifiable. M. tuberculosis was cultured in broth media containing PMA with or without drugs for 3 days prior to DNA extraction and real-time PCR amplification. 16S rRNA qPCR exhibited a significant decrease in threshold cycle (C-T) time values (C-T control - C-T drug treated) with drug-susceptible strains compared with resistant strains. Susceptibility data were reported as Delta CT or as 2(Delta CT) and with appropriate cutoffs yielded an accuracy of 89 to 100% on 38 susceptible, multidrug-resistant, and extensively drug-resistant strains compared with conventional agar proportion susceptibility results for isoniazid, rifampin, ethambutol, streptomycin, amikacin, kanamycin, capreomycin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ethionamide, para-aminosalicylic acid, linezolid, and cycloserine and compared with Bactec MGIT results for pyrazinamide. This PMA-qPCR assay is useful as a rapid 3-day first- and second-line drug susceptibility test for M. tuberculosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据