Comparison of traditional gas chromatography (GC), headspace GC, and the microbial identification library GC system for the identification of Clostridium difficile.
Three gas chromatography (GC) methods were compared for the identification of 52 clinical Clostridium difficile isolates, as well as 17 non-C. difficile Clostridium isolates. Headspace GC and Microbial Identification System (MIS) GC, an automated system which utilizes a software library developed at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute to identify organisms based on the fatty acids extracted from the bacterial cell wall, were compared against the reference method of traditional GC. Headspace GC and MIS were of approximately equivalent accuracy in identifying the 52 C. difficile isolates (52 of 52 versus 51 of 52, respectively). However, 7 of 52 organisms required repeated sample preparation before an identification was achieved by the MIS method. Both systems effectively differentiated C. difficile from non-C. difficile clostridia, although the MIS method correctly identified only 9 of 17. We conclude that the headspace GC system is an accurate method of C. difficile identification, which requires only one-fifth of the sample preparation time of MIS GC and one-half of the sample preparation time of traditional GC.
Cundy
K V
KV
Laboratory Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Willard
K E
KE
Valeri
L J
LJ
Shanholtzer
C J
CJ
Singh
J
J
Peterson
L R
LR
D001431:Bacteriological Techniques; D002849:Chromatography, Gas / Q000379:methods*; D016360:Clostridioides difficile / Q000032:analysis / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D004761:Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous / Q000175:diagnosis; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005227:Fatty Acids / Q000032:analysis; D006801:Humans
D005227:Fatty Acids