The presence of Campylobacter (or Campylobacter-like) species in stools from patients suspected of infectious gastroenteritis (n = 493) was investigated using real-time PCR for detection of Arcobacter butzleri (hsp60 gene), Campylobacter coli (ceuE gene), Campylobacter jejuni (mapA), five acknowledged pathogenic Campylobacter spp. (C16S_Lund assay), and the Campylobacter genus (C16S_LvI assay). In total, 71.4% of the samples were positive for Campylobacter DNA (n = 352) by a Campylobacter genus-specific (C16S_LvI) assay. A total of 23 samples (4.7%) were positive in the C16S_Lund assay, used for detection of C. jejuni, C. coli, C. lari, C. upsaliensis, and C. hyointestinalis. Subsequent identification of these samples yielded detection frequencies (DF) of 4.1% (C. jejuni), 0.4% (C. coli), and 0.4% (C. upsaliensis). The DF of A. butzleri was 0.4%. Interestingly, sequencing of a subgroup (n = 46) of C16S_LvI PCR-positive samples resulted in a considerable number of Campylobacter concisus-positive samples (n = 20). PCR-positive findings with the C16S_Lund and C. jejuni/C. coli-specific assays were associated with more serious clinical symptoms (diarrhea and blood). Threshold cycle (C(T)) values of C. jejuni/C. coli PCR-positive samples were comparable to those of the C16S_Lund PCR (P = 0.21). C(T) values for both assays were significantly lower than those of the C16S_LvI assay (P < 0.001 and P < 0.00001, respectively). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that in combination, the C. jejuni/C coli-specific assays and the C16S_Lund assay are both useful for routine screening purposes. Furthermore, the DF of the emerging pathogen C. concisus was at least similar to the DF of C. jejuni.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boer et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: