Multi-step optimization of the filtration method for the isolation of Campylobacter species from stool samples
- 19 Downloads
The filtration method (FM) is the most effective isolation technique for Epsilobacteriaceae from stool samples. FM’s different adaptations make it difficult to compare data between studies. This study was performed in three phases to optimize FM from a routine laboratory perspective. In July–September 2014 (part I), FM was performed on Mueller–Hinton agar containing 5% sheep blood and Columbia agar containing 5% sheep blood. In July 2016 (part II), FM was performed using 0.60-μm pore size polycarbonate filters (0.6-PC filter) and 0.45-μm pore size cellulose acetate filters (0.45-AC filter); in January 2018 (part III), the addition of hydrogen to incubators was studied. On 1146 stools analyzed in part I, the positive samples that showed no growth on the Butzler medium (n = 22/72, 30.6%) had improved growth of Epsilobacteriaceae when using the Columbia instead of the Mueller–Hinton medium (21/22 strains vs. 11/22, p < 0.05). In part II, on 718 stools, 91 strains grew with FM (12.7%), more with 0.6-PC filter (90/91) than with 0.45-AC filter (44/91) (p < 0.05). In part III, 578 stools were cultured, 98 Epsilobacteriaceae strains grew with FM, and 7% hydrogen finding significantly more Epsilobacteriaceae than without hydrogen (90/98, 91.8%, vs. 72/98, 73.5%; p < 0.05). The use of a Columbia medium containing 5% sheep blood with 0.6-PC filters incubated at 37 °C in a 7% hydrogen-enriched atmosphere led to an almost fourfold increase in the isolation rate of Epsilobacteriaceae among the studied combinations. Reference centers for Campylobacter should use standardized protocols to enable the comparison of prevalence in space and time.
KeywordsCampylobacter Filtration method Filter Hydrogen Concisus Gastroenteritis
This work was supported by The Belgian Kids’ Fund for Pediatric Research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of our institutional research committee.
Data were totally anonymized before analysis, no consent had to be obtained considering the methodology of the present work.
- 1.World Health Organization, (2012) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Organisation for Animal Health. The global view of campylobacteriosis: report of an expert consultation, Utrecht, Netherlands, 9–11 July 2012. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/80751. Accessed Nov 2016
- 2.EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) (2015) The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2014. EFSA J 13(4329):1–191. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4329 Google Scholar
- 5.Debruyne L, Gevers D, Vandamme P (2008) Chapter 1: taxonomy of the family Campylobacteraceae. In: Campylobacter. ASM Press. p. 5–25Google Scholar
- 9.Nielsen HL, Ejlertsen T, Nielsen H (2015) Polycarbonate filtration technique is noninferior to mCCDA for isolation of Campylobacter species from stool samples. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 83:11–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Fitzgerald C, Whichard J, Nachamkin I (2008) Chapter 12: diagnosis and antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter species. In: Campylobacter. ASM Press. p. 227–43Google Scholar
- 17.Ng LK, Stiles ME, Taylor DE (1985) Comparison of basal media for culturing Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. J Clin Microbiol 21:226–230Google Scholar
- 21.Nielsen HL, Engberg J, Ejlertsen T, Nielsen H (2013) Comparison of polycarbonate and cellulose acetate membrane filters for isolation of Campylobacter concisus from stool samples. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 76:549–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Lastovica AJ, le Roux E (2000) Efficient isolation of Campylobacteria from stools. J Clin Microbiol 38:2798–2799Google Scholar
- 27.Engberg J, On SL, Harrington CS, Gerner-Smidt P (2000) Prevalence of Campylobacter, Arcobacter, Helicobacter, and Sutterella spp. in human fecal samples as estimated by a reevaluation of isolation methods for campylobacters. J Clin Microbiol 38:286–291Google Scholar
- 28.Martiny D, Dediste A, Debruyne L, Vlaes L, Haddou NB, Vandamme P et al (2011) Accuracy of the API Campy system, the Vitek 2 Neisseria-Haemophilus card and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for the identification of campylobacter and related organisms. Clin Microbiol Infect 17:1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03328.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar