Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 371–379 | Cite as

Rapid tests for esculin hydrolysis by anaerobic bacteria

  • S. M. Husain Qadri
  • Steve Johnson
Laboratory Methods

Abstract

Esculin hydrolysis is one of the biochemical tests used in the identification of anaerobic microorganisms. The conventional method by use of growing microbial cells requires 24–48 hours of incubation. On the other hand, growth independent methods like the buffered esculin test, the spot test, and the PathoTec strip test utilize the presence of constitutive enzymes and, therefore, yield results in 1–4 hours. A total of 817 anaerobic organisms were used in this study to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the three rapid methods. All three rapid methods gave excellent correlation with the standard conventional method. Over 99% of the organisms gave comparable results with the spot test and the buffered esculin test within one hour; the PathoTec strip test required up to 4 hours. The former two were not only more rapid but also more economical than the PathoTec strip test.

Keywords

Conventional Method Comparable Result Microbial Cell Biochemical Test Anaerobic Bacterium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Deibel, R. H. andSeeley, H. W. Jr. 1974. Streptococcaceae. p. 490–509.In R. E. Buchanan and N. E. Gibbons (eds), Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology. -The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  2. Dowell, V. R. andHawkins, T. M. 1974. Laboratory methods in anaerobic bacteriology. -Center for Disease Control. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  3. Edberg, S. C., Gam, K., Bottenbley, C. J. andSinger, J. M. 1976. Rapid spot test for the determination of esculin hydrolysis. -J. Clin. Microbiol.4: 180–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Edberg, S. C., Pittman, S. andSinger, J. M. 1977. Esculin hydrolysis by Enterobacteriaceae. -J. Clin. Microbiol.6: 111–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Facklam, R. 1973. Comparison of several laboratory media for presumptive identification of enterococci and group D streptococci. -Appl. Microbiol.26: 138–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Facklam, R., andMoody, M. 1970. Presumptive identification of group D streptococci: The bile-esculin test. -Appl. Microbiol.20: 245–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gray, M. L. andKillinger, A. H. 1966.Listeria monocytogenes and listeric infections. -Bacteriol. Rev.30: 309–382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Isenberg, H. D., Goldberg, D. andSampson, J. 1970. Laboratory studies with a selective enterococcus medium. -Appl. Microbiol.20: 433–436.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Qadri, S. M. H., Desilva, M. I. andZubairi, S. 1980. Rapid test for determination of esculin hydrolysis. -J. Clin. Microbiol.12: 472–474.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Qadri, S. M. H., Johnson, S., Smith, J. C., Zubairi, S. andGillum, R. L. 1981. Comparison of spot esculin hydrolysis with the PathoTec strip test for rapid differentiation of anaerobic bacteria. — J. Clin. Microbiol.13: (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Smith, P. B., Rhoden, D. L. andTomforhrde, K. M. 1975. Evaluation of the PathoTec Rapid I-D System for identification of Enterobacteriaceae. -J. Clin. Microbiol.1: 359–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Vaughn, R. H. andLevine M. 1942. Differentiation of the “intermediate” coli-like bacteria. -J. Bacteriol.44: 487–505.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Husain Qadri
    • 1
  • Steve Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and Oklahoma Memorial Hospital and ClinicsOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations