Comparison of the conventional culture, the manual fluorescent MGIT system and the automated fluorescent MGIT 960 culture system for the detection of Mycobacterium avium ssp. avium in tissues of naturally infected hens
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- bakteriologické techniky veterinární MeSH
- diagnostické techniky a postupy veterinární MeSH
- fluorescence MeSH
- kultivační média metabolismus MeSH
- kultivační techniky veterinární MeSH
- kur domácí MeSH
- Mycobacterium růst a vývoj izolace a purifikace metabolismus MeSH
- ptačí tuberkulóza diagnóza mikrobiologie MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- kultivační média MeSH
Different methods for the detection of Mycobacterium avium ssp. avium (MAA) in naturally infected hens were compared. They included the conventional culture method (solid Herrold's and Stonebrink media and liquid Sula medium) and newly developed liquid culture systems, the manual mycobacteria growth indicator tube (M-MGIT) and the fully automated BACTEC MGIT 960 system (A-MGIT). 152 tissues originating from 15 naturally infected hens have been processed. The overall detection rates (percentage of positive cultures from the number of positive cultures determined by all the methods together) were 60, 70 and 76 % for the conventional media, M-MGIT and A-MGIT systems, respectively, the mean time of mycobacteria detection being 32.6, 17.6 and 14.6 d, respectively. The lowest contamination rate (2.0 %) was found in A-MGIT compared with M-MGIT (4.6 %) and conventional media (10.4 %).
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000 May;37(1):25-30 PubMed
Rinsho Biseibutshu Jinsoku Shindan Kenkyukai Shi. 2000 Aug;11(1):19-26 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Mar;38(3):960-4 PubMed
J Appl Microbiol. 2003;95(1):196-201 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Sep;35(9):2229-34 PubMed
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2007 Apr;20(2):198-203 PubMed
PCR Methods Appl. 1992 May;1(4):269-73 PubMed
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997 Jun;28(2):69-74 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Oct;34(10):2391-4 PubMed
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000 May;37(1):31-6 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 May;36(5):1378-81 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2000 Mar;6(3):171-3 PubMed
Am J Clin Pathol. 2002 Oct;118(4):542-5 PubMed
Vet Microbiol. 2007 Jan 17;119(1):42-52 PubMed
Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 2002;70(9-10):450-7 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jan;38(1):398-401 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Mar;37(3):748-52 PubMed
Aust Vet J. 1995 Dec;72(12):458-62 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000 Sep;19(9):715-7 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Feb;35(2):364-8 PubMed
Lancet. 1997 Aug 30;350(9078):624-9 PubMed
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Jan;149(1):264-7 PubMed
Res Vet Sci. 2008 Oct;85(2):257-64 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Mar;43(3):1261-8 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Sep;34(9):2236-9 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Oct;39(10):3764-7 PubMed
