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
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Bacteriological Techniques veterinary MeSH
- Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures veterinary MeSH
- Fluorescence MeSH
- Culture Media metabolism MeSH
- Culture Techniques veterinary MeSH
- Chickens MeSH
- Mycobacterium growth & development isolation & purification metabolism MeSH
- Tuberculosis, Avian diagnosis microbiology MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Female MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Culture Media 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 %).
See more in 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
