C. difficile ribotype 027 or 176?
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Bacterial Proteins genetics MeSH
- Clostridioides difficile classification genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Gene Deletion MeSH
- Feces microbiology MeSH
- Cross Infection microbiology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Hospitals statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Ribotyping MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Czech Republic MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Bacterial Proteins MeSH
Clostridium difficile is a major nosocomial pathogen of present times. The analysis of 624 C. difficile strains from 11 hospitals in the Czech Republic in 2013 revealed that 40% of isolates belonged to ribotype 176. These results suggest that the incidence of CDI (C. difficile infection) in the Czech Republic has increased probably in connection with C. difficile ribotype 176. The molecular systems Xpert C. difficile Epi assay (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) diagnoses toxigenic strains and supports C. difficile ribotype 027 determination based on three specific target places in the toxigenic C. difficile genome. Twenty-nine strains cultivated from stool specimens were evaluated by the Xpert systems as presumed C. difficile PCR ribotype 027 were confirmed as a C. difficile ribotype 176 based on ribotyping. A further 120 C. difficile strains of ribotype 176 were examined for the presence of genes tcdB, cdtB and deletion in position 117 in the tcdC gene. Our experience shows that due to the correspondence of the target places, C. difficile ribotype 176 may be interpreted as ribotype 027 by Xpert C. difficile Epi assay (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). Further molecular analysis as ribotyping based on capillary electrophoresis is needed to differentiate between C. difficile ribotypes 027 and 176 for appropriate epidemiological situation control on local and national levels.
See more in PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Nov;47(11):3478-81 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Sep;40(9):3470-5 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Feb;41(2):730-4 PubMed
Lancet. 2011 Jan 1;377(9759):63-73 PubMed
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010 Jul;67(3):304-7 PubMed
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009 Jul;7(7):526-36 PubMed
J Med Microbiol. 2010 Nov;59(Pt 11):1317-1323 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Oct;49(10):3719-21 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 Sep;31(9):2219-25 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Nov 1;45(9):1152-60 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Oct;12 Suppl 6:2-18 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Dec;47(12):3846-50 PubMed
Lancet. 2005 Sep 24-30;366(9491):1079-84 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2014 May;59(3):209-15 PubMed
Lancet. 2011 Apr 23;377(9775):1407 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008 Nov;14(11):1057-64 PubMed
J Med Microbiol. 2008 Nov;57(Pt 11):1377-1382 PubMed
Ann Lab Med. 2012 Sep;32(5):355-8 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 Sep;32(9):1183-92 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Apr;47(4):1276-7 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Dec;48(12):4519-24 PubMed
Euro Surveill. 2005 Jun 30;10(6):E050630.2 PubMed
J Med Microbiol. 2011 Aug;60(Pt 8):1131-1136 PubMed
Microbiology (Reading). 2011 Nov;157(Pt 11):3113-3123 PubMed
J Microbiol Methods. 2012 Aug;90(2):83-5 PubMed
Nat Genet. 2013 Jan;45(1):109-13 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Apr;50(4):1331-5 PubMed
J Med Microbiol. 2012 Jan;61(Pt 1):49-56 PubMed