| Title |
Simultaneous detection and characterization of toxigenic Clostridium difficile directly from clinical stool specimens
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers of Medicine, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11684-017-0560-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanjiang Lai, Chen Huang, Jian Cai, Julian Ye, Jun She, Yi Zheng, Liqian Wang, Yelin Wei, Weijia Fang, Xianjun Wang, Yi-Wei Tang, Yun Luo, Dazhi Jin |
| Abstract |
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 (x (2) = 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 33% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,450,513
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers of Medicine
#280
of 351 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,781
of 326,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers of Medicine
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 351 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.