Identifying Leuconostoc: A Study on Diagnostic Accuracy
Author Information
Author(s): Kulwichit Wanla, Nilgate Sumanee, Chatsuwan Tanittha, Krajiw Sunisa, Unhasuta Chudaachhara, Chongthaleong Anan
Primary Institution: Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Hypothesis
Can conventional phenotypic assays provide accurate identification of Leuconostoc compared to API systems?
Conclusion
The current API systems cannot accurately identify Leuconostoc, and practical phenotypic assays should be used for better identification.
Supporting Evidence
- API 20 STREP misidentified several non-Leuconostoc strains as Leuconostoc.
- Only 3 out of 11 isolates were confirmed as Leuconostoc by both genotypic and phenotypic criteria.
- API 50 CHL identified almost all Leuconostoc correctly, but with some exceptions.
Takeaway
This study shows that some tests used to identify a type of bacteria called Leuconostoc can make mistakes, so we need better ways to tell them apart.
Methodology
Clinical isolates were identified using API 20 STREP and API 50 CHL, followed by conventional phenotypic assays and genotypic assays.
Potential Biases
Potential misidentification of closely related bacteria like Lactobacillus and Weissella as Leuconostoc.
Limitations
The study's results may be affected by the loss or change in bacterial characteristics due to repeated subculturing.
Participant Demographics
Clinical isolates from a 1,500-bed university hospital in Thailand.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website