Diagnosis of Clostridium difficile: real-time PCR detection of toxin genes in faecal samples is more sensitive compared to toxigenic culture

Laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection in symptomatic patients: what can we do better?

The laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is challenging since this bacteria may be detected in healthy people and toxin production detection is not sensitive enough to be used alone. Thus, there is no single test with adequate sensitivity and specificity to be used in laboratory diagnosis. We evaluated the performance of tests used in the diagnosis of CDI in symptomatic patients with risk factors in hospitals in southern Brazil. Enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for glutamate dehydrogenase antigen (GDH) and toxins A/B, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), GeneXpert system, and a two-step algorithm comprising GDH/TOXIN EIA performed simultaneously followed by GeneXpert for outliers were evaluated. Toxigenic strain in stool culture was considered CDI positive (gold standard). Among 400 samples tested, 54 (13.5%) were positive for CDI and 346 (86.5%) were negative. The diagnosis of the two-step algorithm and qPCR had an excellent performance with an accuracy of 94.5% and 94.2%, respectively. The Youden index showed that GeneXpert as a single test (83.5%) and the two-step algorithm (82.8%) were the most effective assays. Diagnosing CDI and non-CDI diarrhea could be successfully attained by the combination of clinical data with accuracy of laboratory tests.

Toxin-Producing Klebsiella oxytoca in Healthy Infants: Commensal or Pathobiont?

OBJECTIVES

Klebsiella oxytoca is a gastrointestinal pathobiont with the potential to produce the toxins tilivalline and tilimycin, which cause antibiotic-associated hemorrhagic colitis. Overgrowth of toxigenic K oxytoca has recently been implicated in necrotizing enterocolitis. K oxytoca colonizes 2-9% of healthy adults, however, there is no systematic data on colonization in healthy children. We investigated K oxytoca colonization and its toxigenic properties in healthy infants.

METHODS

We sampled stool of healthy infants and determined K oxytoca colonization using stool culture and PCR (pehX). Toxin in stool was measured with HPLC/high-resolution mass spectrometry. K oxytoca isolates were typed using multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) and K oxytoca toxin PCR (npsA/B). Cytotoxin production of isolates was analyzed by MTT assay.

RESULTS

K oxytoca was detected in 30 of 61 infants (49%) using stool culture and in 45 of 61 (73%) using PCR (pehX). Toxin marker PCR (npsA/B) was positive in 66% of stool samples positive for K oxytoca PCR. Stool toxin levels were too low for quantitation but traces of tilivalline were detected. Contrarily, 49% of K oxytoca isolates demonstrated toxicity in the MTT assay. MLST revealed 36 distinct sequence types affiliated with all known K oxytoca sequence type clusters (A, B1 and B2).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 70% of healthy infants were colonized with K oxytoca. Toxin quantities in stool of colonized healthy infants were below detection level, yet half of the isolates produced toxin in vitro demonstrating their pathobiont potential. The high occurrence of toxigenic K oxytoca in healthy infants has to be considered for future disease association studies.

Standardisation and validation of an in-house quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection

OBJECTIVES

Clostridioides difficile is an emerging enteric pathogen that causes nosocomial diarrhoea in adults. The excessive cost of commercial molecular tests restricts the access of developing countries to its diagnosis. This study aimed to develop and validate in-house quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) targeting the C. difficile toxin B gene (tcdB) using two detection methodologies-SYBR Green and hydrolysis probes-for the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI).

METHODS

Glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) plus toxigenic culture was the standard reference diagnostic method. The SYBR Green method and hydrolysis probes were used to study 392 samples simultaneously to assess the diagnostic value of these real-time PCR assays in detecting CDI from clinical samples.

RESULTS

The SYBR Green and hydrolysis probe assays showed 97.9% and 87.5% sensitivity; 99.1% and 100.0% specificity; 94.0% and 100.0% positive predictive value; 99.7% and 98.3% negative predictive value; and 99.0% and 98.5% accuracy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The two qPCR methodologies evaluated could offer an adequate tool as part of an algorithm in the laboratory diagnosis of CDI.

Verification of analytical bacterial spectrum of QIAstat-Dx® GI V2 and Novodiag® Bacterial GE+ V2-0 diagnostic panels

Background

Implementing multiplex PCR or syndromic panel-based testing platforms to detect microbial species that cause acute diarrhoea may guide patient management more effectively and efficiently.

Objectives

To assess and compare the performance of two syndromic panel-based testing systems, QIAstat-Dx^® Gastrointestinal Panel V2 (QGI) and the Novodiag^® Bacterial GE+ V2-0 (NGE).

Methods

The QGI and NGE panels include 16 and 14 bacterial gastrointestinal pathogens, respectively. The performance of the panels was tested retrospectively using 141 positive clinical stool specimens, External Quality Assessment (EQA) panels and spiked faecal specimens.

Results

For Campylobacter jejuni and coli (n = 20), Salmonella (n = 24), Shigella (n = 13), Yersinia enterocolitica (non-1A biotypes) (n = 8), Clostridioides difficile (n = 24) and Vibrio parahaemolyticus (n = 2), QGI correctly verified 19/20, 20/24, 13/13, 8/8, 23/24 and 2/2, whereas NGE correctly verified 20/20, 17/24, 13/13, 8/8, 14/24 and 1/2. Among diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli (n = 29), QGI reported one Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) stx1a O26:H11 as STEC serotype O157:H7 and NGE failed on one enteropathogenic E. coli, one enteroaggregative E. coli and one STEC (stx2e). Y. enterocolitica biotype 1A (non-pathogenic) (n = 6) were all positive in QGI, but negative in NGE.

Conclusions

Both QGI and NGE testing panels can improve laboratory workflow and patient management by providing user-friendly platforms that can rapidly detect a number of targets with one specimen. QGI was significantly more sensitive in identifying C. difficile. Both methods had suboptimal detection of Salmonella and this needs to be examined further. The short hands-on time and turnaround time are of value for on-demand testing and use in a high-throughput setting.

Evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert C. difficile diagnostic assay: an update meta-analysis

Background

Accurate and rapid diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is critical for effective patient management and implementation of infection control measures to prevent transmission.

Objectives

We updated our previous meta-analysis to provide a more reliable evidence base for the clinical diagnosis of Xpert C. difficile (Xpert C. difficile) assay.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) databases to identify studies according to predetermined criteria. STATA 13.0 software was used to analyze the tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies with RevMan 5.2. Heterogeneity in accuracy measures was tested with Spearman correlation coefficient and chi-square. Meta-regressions and subgroup analyses were performed to figure out the potential sources of heterogeneity. Model diagnostics were used to evaluate the veracity of the data.

Results

A total of 26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for diagnosis was 0.97(0.95–0.98), and specificity was 0.96(0.95–0.97). The AUC was 0.99 (0.98–1.00). Model diagnostics confirmed the robustness of our meta-analysis’s results. Significant heterogeneity was still observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed that the sample size and type, ethnicity, and disease prevalence might be the conspicuous sources of heterogeneity.

Conclusions

The up-to-date meta-analysis showed the Xpert CD assay had good accuracy for detecting CDI. However, the diagnosis of CDI must combine clinical presentation with diagnostic testing to better answer the question of whether the patient actually has CDI in the future, and inclusion of preanalytical parameters and clinical outcomes in study design would provide a more objective evidence base.

Laboratory Diagnostic Methods for Clostridioides difficile Infection: the First Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Korea

Background

Various methods are used for the diagnosis of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). We systematically analyzed and investigated the performance of current laboratory diagnostic methods for CDI.

Methods

We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed. The following methods were evaluated glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (GDH EIAs), toxin A and B detection by enzyme immunoassays (toxin AB EIAs), and nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for C. difficile toxin genes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each method were calculated.

Results

Based on 39 studies, the pooled sensitivities/specificities were 92.7%/94.6%, 57.9%/97.0%, and 90.0%/95.8% for GDH EIAs, toxin AB EIAs, and NAATs, respectively, compared with those of toxigenic culture. The pooled sensitivities of automated EIAs were significantly higher than those of non-automated EIAs for both GDH and toxins A and B. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert C. difficile was significantly higher than those of other NAATs. PPVs increased as CDI prevalence increased, and NPVs were excellent when CDI prevalence was low; at CDI prevalence of 5%, PPV = 37%-65% and NPV = 97%-100%; at CDI prevalence of 50%, PPV = 92%-97% and NPV = 65%-98%.

Conclusions

Toxin AB EIAs still show unsatisfactory sensitivity, whereas GDH EIAs and NAATs show relatively high sensitivity. However, toxin AB EIAs are the most specific tests. This study may provide useful information for CDI diagnosis.

Rapid detection assay of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile through PathOC RightGene, a novel high-speed polymerase chain reaction device

Nucleic acid amplification tests for diagnosing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) are improving to become faster and more accurate. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of rapid detection of toxigenic C. difficile using the novel high-speed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) device, PathOC RightGene. These results were compared and evaluated with real-time PCR (qPCR) and enzyme immunoassays (EIA) kit. For this study, 102 C. difficile and 3 Clostridium species isolated from CDI patients were used. These C. difficile isolates were 85 toxigenic and 17 non-toxigenic strains. The results of qPCR served as a standard, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the PathOC Right Gene were 99.2%, 99.4%, 100%, 98.8%, and 99.3%, respectively. Turnaround time of qPCR and EIA was 85 and 30 minutes, whereas PathOC RightGene was only 25 minutes including DNA extraction. This novel high-speed PCR device detected toxigenic C. difficile rapidly and accurately.

Microbiota-associated risk factors for C. difficile acquisition in hospitalized patients: A prospective, multicentric study

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic C. difficile colonization is believed to predispose to subsequent C. difficile infection (CDI). While emerging insights into the role of the commensal microbiota in mediating colonization resistance against C. difficile have associated CDI with specific microbial components, corresponding prospectively collected data on colonization with C. difficile are largely unavailable.

METHODS

C. difficile status was assessed by GDH EIA and real-time PCR targeting the toxin A (tcdA) and B (tcdB) genes. 16S V3 and V4 gene sequencing results from fecal samples of patients tested positive for C. difficile were analyzed by assessing alpha and beta diversity, LefSe, and the Piphillin functional inference approach to estimate functional capacity.

RESULTS

1506 patients were recruited into a prospective observational study (DRKS00005335) upon admission into one of five academic hospitals. 936 of them provided fecal samples on admission and at discharge and were thus available for longitudinal analysis. Upon hospital admission, 5.5% (83/1506) and 3.7% (56/1506) of patients were colonized with toxigenic (TCD) and non-toxigenic C. difficile (NTCD), respectively. During hospitalization, 1.7% (16/936) acquired TCD. Risk factors for acquisition of TCD included pre-existing lung diseases, lower GI endoscopy and antibiotics. Species protecting against hospital-related C. difficile acquisition included Gemmiger spp., Odoribacter splanchnicus, Ruminococcus bromii and other Ruminococcus spp.. Metagenomic pathway analysis identified steroid biosynthesis as the most underrepresented metabolic pathway in patients who later acquire C. difficile colonization.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemmiger spp., Odoribacter splanchnicus, Ruminococcus bromii and other Ruminococci were associated with a decreased risk of C. difficile acquisition.

A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs) and Algorithms Including NAATs for the Diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Adults

The evidence base for the optimal laboratory diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in adults is currently unresolved due to the uncertain performance characteristics and various combinations of tests. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory testing algorithms that include nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) to detect the presence of C. difficile The systematic review and meta-analysis included eligible studies (those that had PICO [population, intervention, comparison, outcome] elements) that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of NAAT alone or following glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) or GDH EIAs plus C. difficile toxin EIAs (toxin). The diagnostic yield of NAAT for repeat testing after an initial negative result was also assessed. Two hundred thirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Seventy-two of these studies had sufficient data for meta-analysis. The strength of evidence ranged from high to insufficient. The uses of NAAT only, GDH-positive EIA followed by NAAT, and GDH-positive/toxin-negative EIA followed by NAAT are all recommended as American Society for Microbiology (ASM) best practices for the detection of the C. difficile toxin gene or organism. Meta-analysis of published evidence supports the use of testing algorithms that use NAAT alone or in combination with GDH or GDH plus toxin EIA to detect the presence of C. difficile in adults. There is insufficient evidence to recommend against repeat testing of the sample using NAAT after an initial negative result due to a lack of evidence of harm (i.e., financial, length of stay, or delay of treatment) as specified by the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) systematic review method in making such an assessment. Findings from this systematic review provide clarity to diagnostic testing strategies and highlight gaps, such as low numbers of GDH/toxin/PCR studies, in existing evidence on diagnostic performance, which can be used to guide future clinical research studies.

Laboratory-developed test for detection of acute Clostridium difficile infections with the capacity for quantitative sample normalization

We describe a laboratory-developed test intended for the detection of acute Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) with the capacity for quantitative sample normalization. The test is based on the detection of the tcdB gene. However, this biomarker is also present among people without symptoms, implying that individuals with diarrhea, not caused by C. difficile may nonetheless test positive. Therefore, clinical diagnosis based on this format of testing can be challenging. In order to improve diagnostic assays capability, tcdB-based quantification methods were suggested as a potential solution, however they did not increase clinical specificity. We report methodology for a dual biomarker monitoring (total bacterial load and tcdB assay), allowing for the calculation of the relative presence of tcdB in the total bacterial population in the tested samples. We believe that this approach is clinically relevant to current assays and can improve CDI testing algorithms.

BaiCD gene cluster abundance is negatively correlated with Clostridium difficile infection

BACKGROUND

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a major cause of hospital-acquired diarrhea. Secondary bile acids were shown to confer resistance to colonization by C. difficile. 7α-dehydroxylation is a key step in transformation of primary to secondary bile acids and required genes have been located in a single bile acid-inducible (bai) operon in C. scindens as well as in C. hiranonis, two Clostridium sp. recently reported to protect against C. difficile colonization.

AIM

To analyze baiCD gene abundance in C. difficile positive and negative fecal samples.

MATERIAL & METHODS

A species-specific qPCR for detecting baiCD genes was established. Fecal samples of patients with CDI, asymptomatic toxigenic C. difficile colonization (TCD), non-toxigenic C. difficile colonization (NTCD), of C. difficile negative (NC) patients, and of two patients before and after fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for recurrent CDI (rCDI) were tested for the presence of the baiCD genes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the baiCD gene cluster was significantly higher in C. difficile negative fecal samples than in samples of patients diagnosed with CDI (72.5% (100/138) vs. 35.9% (23/64; p<0.0001). No differences in baiCD gene cluster prevalence were seen between NC and NTCD or NC and TCD samples. Both rCDI patients were baiCD-negative at baseline, but one of the two patients turned positive after successful FMT from a baiCD-positive donor.

CONCLUSION

Fecal samples of CDI patients are less frequently baiCD-positive than samples from asymptomatic carriers or C. difficile-negative individuals. Furthermore, we present a case of baiCD positivity observed after successful FMT for rCDI.

Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens

We employed a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) coupled with capillary electrophoresis (mPCR-CE) targeting six Clostridium difficile genes, including tpi, tcdA, tcdB, cdtA, cdtB, and a deletion in tcdC for simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic C. difficile directly from fecal specimens. The mPCR-CE had a limit of detection of 10 colony-forming units per reaction with no cross-reactions with other related bacterial genes. Clinical validation was performed on 354 consecutively collected stool specimens from patients with suspected C. difficile infection and 45 isolates. The results were compared with a reference standard combined with BD MAX Cdiff, real-time cell analysis assay (RTCA), and mPCR-CE. The toxigenic C. difficile species were detected in 36 isolates and 45 stool specimens by the mPCR-CE, which provided a positive rate of 20.3% (81/399). The mPCR-CE had a specificity of 97.2% and a sensitivity of 96.0%, which was higher than RTCA (x² = 5.67, P = 0.017) but lower than BD MAX Cdiff (P = 0.245). Among the 45 strains, 44 (97.8%) were determined as nonribotype 027 by the mPCR-CE, which was fully agreed with PCR ribotyping. Even though ribotypes 017 (n = 8, 17.8%), 001 (n = 6, 13.3%), and 012 (n = 7, 15.6%) were predominant in this region, ribotype 027 was an important genotype monitored routinely. The mPCR-CE provided an alternative diagnosis tool for the simultaneous detection of toxigenic C. difficile in stool and potentially differentiated between RT027 and non-RT027.

Accuracy of Xpert Clostridium difficile assay for the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection: A meta analysis

Background

There is an urgent need for rapid and accurate microbiological diagnostic assay for detection of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert Clostridium difficile assay (Xpert CD) for the diagnosis of CDI.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies according to predetermined criteria. STATA 13.0 software was used to analyze the tests for sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). QUADAS-2 was used to assess the quality of included studies with RevMan 5.2. Heterogeneity in accuracy measures was tested with Spearman correlation coefficient and Chi-square.

Results

A total of 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [CI]) was 0.97 (0.95–0.99) and specificity was 0.95 (0.94–0.96). The AUC was 0.99 (0.97–0.99). Significant heterogeneity was observed when we pooled most of the accuracy measures of selected studies.

Conclusions

The Xpert CD assay is a useful diagnostic tool with high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing toxigenic CDI, and this method has excellent usability due to its rapidity and simplicity.

Evaluation of Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile Assays for Direct Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Stool Specimens

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the performance of four commercial nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs: Xpert C. difficile, BD MAX Cdiff, IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000, and Illumigene C. difficile) for direct and rapid detection of Clostridium difficile toxin genes.

METHODS

We compared four NAATs on the same set of 339 stool specimens (303 prospective and 36 retrospective specimens) with toxigenic culture (TC).

RESULTS

Concordance rate among four NAATs was 90.3% (306/339). Based on TC results, the sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 92.9% for Xpert; 86.3% and 89.3% for Max; 84.3% and 94.4% for IMDx; and 82.4% and 93.7% for Illumigene, respectively. For 306 concordant cases, there were 11 TC-negative/NAATs co-positive cases and 6 TC-positive/NAATs co-negative cases. Among 33 discordant cases, 18 were only single positive in each NAAT (Xpert, 1; Max, 12; IMDx, 1; Illumigene, 4). Positivity rates of the four NAATs were associated with those of semi-quantitative cultures, which were maximized in grade 3 (>100 colony-forming unit [CFU]) compared with grade 1 (<10 CFU).

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial NAATs may be rapid and reliable methods for direct detection of tcdA and/or tcdB in stool specimens compared with TC. Some differences in the sensitivity of the NAATs may partly depend on the number of toxigenic C. difficile in stool specimens.

Detection of Clostridium difficile in Feces of Asymptomatic Patients Admitted to the Hospital

Recent evidence shows that patients asymptomatically colonized with Clostridium difficile may contribute to the transmission of C. difficile in health care facilities. Additionally, these patients may have a higher risk of developing C. difficile infection. The aim of this study was to compare a commercially available PCR directed to both toxin A and B (artus C. difficile QS-RGQ kit CE; Qiagen), an enzyme-linked fluorescent assay to glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH ELFA) (Vidas, bioMérieux), and an in-house-developed PCR to tcdB, with (toxigenic) culture of C. difficile as the gold standard to detect asymptomatic colonization. Test performances were evaluated in a collection of 765 stool samples obtained from asymptomatic patients at admission to the hospital. The C. difficile prevalence in this collection was 5.1%, and 3.1% contained toxigenic C. difficile Compared to C. difficile culture, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the C. difficile GDH ELFA were 87.2%, 91.2%, 34.7%, and 99.3%, respectively. Compared with results of toxigenic culture, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the commercially available PCR and the in-house PCR were 95.8%, 93.4%, 31.9%, 99.9%, and 87.5%, 98.8%, 70%, and 99.6%, respectively. We conclude that in a low-prevalence setting of asymptomatically colonized patients, both GDH ELFA and a nucleic acid amplification test can be applied as a first screening test, as they both display a high NPV. However, the low PPV of the tests hinders the use of these assays as stand-alone tests.

Diagnostic test accuracy of glutamate dehydrogenase for Clostridium difficile: Systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of detecting glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) based on the hierarchical model. Two investigators electrically searched four databases. Reference tests were stool cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay (CCNA) and stool toxigenic culture (TC). To assess the overall accuracy, we calculated the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a DerSimonian-Laird random-model and area the under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (AUC) using Holling’s proportional hazard models. The summary estimate of the sensitivity and the specificity were obtained using the bivariate model. According to 42 reports consisting of 3055 reference positive comparisons, and 26188 reference negative comparisons, the DOR was 115 (95%CI: 77–172, I² = 12.0%) and the AUC was 0.970 (95%CI: 0.958–0.982). The summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity were 0.911 (95%CI: 0.871–0.940) and 0.912 (95%CI: 0.892–0.928). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.4 (95%CI 8.4–12.7) and 0.098 (95%CI 0.066–0.142), respectively. Detecting GDH for the diagnosis of CDI had both high sensitivity and specificity. Considering its low cost and prevalence, it is appropriate for a screening test for CDI.

Advanced PCR-based molecular diagnosis of gastrointestinal infections: challenges and opportunities

Acute infections of the gastrointestinal tract are among the most common infectious diseases. The etiological agents of gastroenteritis may be bacteria, viruses or protozoa. Identification of the etiological agents of acute diarrhea is important for the treatment and management of diarrheal diseases. Conventional stool culture for bacteria shows a low sensitivity and requires more than 24 hours. In addition, other approaches to detect viruses and protozoa mainly involve antigen detection, but this is not available for all enteropathogens, and microscopic observation requires training and is of low sensitivity. In this review, the authors describe currently available molecular methods to detect different enteropathogens and analyze the main advantages and disadvantages of these methods for laboratory diagnosis of gastroenteritis.

Single fluorophore melting curve analysis for detection of hypervirulent Clostridium difficile

This study demonstrates a novel detection assay able to identify and subtype strains of Clostridium difficile. Primers carefully designed for melting curve analysis amplify DNA from three C. difficile genes, tcdB, tcdC and cdtB, during quantitative (q)PCR. The tcdB gene allows for confirmation of organism presence, whilst the tcdC and cdtB genes allow for differentiation of virulence status, as deletions in the tcdC gene and the concurrent presence of the cdtB gene, which produces binary toxin, are associated with hypervirulence. Following qPCR, subtyping is then achieved by automated, inline melting curve analysis using only a single intercalating dye and verified by microchip electrophoresis. This assay represents a novel means of distinguishing between toxigenic and hypervirulent C. difficile strains NAP1/027/BI and 078 ribotype, which are highly prevalent hypervirulent strains in humans. This methodology can help rapidly detect and identify C. difficile strains that impose a significant health and economic burden in hospitals and other healthcare settings.