Comparison of PCR and MGIT 960 fl orometric methods in the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis


Abstract views: 50 / PDF downloads: 31

Authors

  • Tekin Karslıgil Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University
  • S. Gökçe Alagöz Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University
  • Yasemin Zer Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University
  • Mustafa Sağlam Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University
  • Mustafa Çay Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University
  • Şükran Buğur Department of Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5578/GMJ.10819

Keywords:

Mycobacterium tuberculosis, culture, PCR

Abstract

Tuberculosis infection is one of the most important lung diseases in both the world and Turkey. It is very important to have an accurate and reliable diagnosis of M. tuberculosis, which is a tuberculosis agent. Although culture is the golden standard method in the diagnosis, patients receive results earlier with molecular diagnostic methods, since they are faster. The aim of the present study was to compare molecular and culture diagnostic methods used in the diagnosis of M. tuberculosis and to investigate at what rate molecular methods help the diagnosis. The study included 152 patients (61 females, 91 males) who were admitted to the Microbiology Laboratory of the Medical School of Gaziantep University Şahinbey Research and Practice Hospital. After applying the decontamination and homogenization process to patient samples, culture and PCR were performed. When the results were evaluated by comparing 12 patients in culture, 11 patients in PCR were confi rmed positive. Among the samples, one surgical material and a sputum sample came up with results positive in culture and negative in PCR. The differences in the results of our study in two procedures may be associated with sample type, the presence of dead bacillary, and DNA loss that may occur in the decontamination homogenization process. It is important to diagnose tuberculosis accurately and fast. However, it should be noted that the molecular systems are more costly.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Soini H, Musser JM. Molecular diagnosis of mycobacteria. Clin Chemistry 2001;47:809-14.

Afghani B, Lieberman JM, Duke MB, Stutman HR. Comparison of quantitative polymerase chain reaction, acid-fast bacilli smear and culture results in patients receiving therapy for pulmonary tuberculosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1998;29:73-9.

68. Verem Eğitim ve Propaganda Haftası Basın Bilgi Notu.

World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis control: a short update to the 2012 report. WHO report 2012. WHO/HTM/ TB/2012.6, France.

Dorman SE. New diagnostic tests for tuberculosis: bench, bedside, and beyond. Clin Infect Dis 2010;3:173-7.

Yajko DM, Wagner C, Tevere VJ, Kocagöz T, Hadley WK, Chambers HF. Quantitative culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from clinical sputum specimens and dilution end points of its detection by the Amplicor PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol 1995; 33:1944-7.

Hellyer TJ, Fletcher TW, Bates JH, Stead WW, Templeton GL, Cave MD, et al. Strand displacement amplifi cation and the polymerase chain reaction for monitoring response to treatment in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. J Infect Dis 1996;173(4):934-41.

Marja-Leena Katila, Palvi Katila, Riita Erkinjuntti-Pekkanen. Accelerated detection and identifi cation of mycobacteria with MGIT 960 and COBAS AMPLICOR systems. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2000;38(3):960-4

Bayram A, Çeliksöz C, Karslıgil T, Balcı İ. Klinik örneklerden kültür ile saptanan Mycobacterium tuberculosis kompleks kökenlerinin otomatize PCR yöntemiyle araştırılması. Turkish Journal of Infection 2006;20(1):1-6

Gürsoy N, Durmaz R, Günal S, Otlu B, Çalışkan A. Tüberkülozun tanısında Cobas Amplicor ve iki Real Time Polimeraz Zincir Reaksiyon sistemlerinin değerlendirilmesi. 6. Ulusal Mikobakteri Sempozyum Kitabı, 2006:223.

Brisson-Noel A, Aznar C, Chureau C, Nguyen S, Pierre C, Bartoli M, et al. G. Diagnosis of tuberculosis by DNA amplifi cation in clinical practice evaluation. Lancet 1991;338(8763):364-6.

Abe C, Hirano K, Wada M, Kazumi Y, Takahashi M, Fukasawa Y. et al. Detection of M. tuberculosis in clinical specimens by polymerase chain reaction and Gen-Probe amplifi ed M. tuberculosis direct test. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:3270-4.

Downloads

Published

2015-12-01

How to Cite

Karslıgil, T., Alagöz, S. G., Zer, Y., Sağlam, M., Çay, M., & Buğur, Şükran. (2015). Comparison of PCR and MGIT 960 fl orometric methods in the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. European Journal of Therapeutics, 21(4), 248–251. https://doi.org/10.5578/GMJ.10819

Issue

Section

Original Articles