title: Evaluation of single and double-locus real-time PCR assays for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) surveillance.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a human pathogen, representing an infection control challenge. Conventional MRSA screening takes up to three days, therefore development of rapid detection is essential. Real time-PCR (rt-PCR) is the fastest method fulfilling this task. All currently published or commercially available rt-PCR MRSA assays relay on single or double-locus detection. Double-locus assays are based on simultaneous detection of mecA gene and a S. aureus-specific gene. Such assays cannot be applied on clinical samples, which often contain both coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) and S. aureus, either of which can carry mecA. Single-locus assays are based on detection of the staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) element and the S. aureus-specific orfX gene, assuming that it is equivalent to mecA detection.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Parallel evaluation of several published single and double-locus rt-PCR MRSA assays of 150 pure culture strains, followed by analysis of 460 swab-derived clinical samples which included standard identification, susceptibility testing, followed by PCR detection of staphylococcal suspected isolates and in-PCR mixed bacterial populations analysis indicated the following findings.Pure cultures analysis indicated that one of the single-locus assay had very high prevalence of false positives (Positive predictive value = 77.8%) and was excluded from further analysis. Analysis of 460 swab-derived samples indicated that the second single-locus assay misidentified 16 out of 219 MRSA's and 13 out of 90 methicillin-sensitive S. aureus's (MSSA) were misidentified as MRSA's. The double-locus detection assay misidentified 55 out of 90 MSSA's. 46 MSSA containing samples were misidentified as MRSA and 9 as other than S. aureus ending with low positive predicted value (<85%) and very low specificity (<62%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results indicate that high prevalence of false-positive and false-negative reactions occurs in such assays.
authors.affiliation: Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel. yossi.paitan@clalit.org.il.
authors.forename: Sara
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kolman
authors.forename: Haya
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Arielly
authors.forename: Yossi
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Paitan
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;27(10):1004-8
references.pmid: 17006805
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Apr;44(4):1219-23
references.pmid: 16597841
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jan;44(1):229-31
references.pmid: 16390977
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Jul;40(7):2555-65
references.pmid: 12089277
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Jan 1;36(1):53-9
references.pmid: 12491202
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 1998 Jan 26;158(2):182-9
references.pmid: 9448557
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2004 May;42(5):1875-84
references.pmid: 15131143
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2001 May 15;32 Suppl 2:S114-32
references.pmid: 11320452
references.citation: Emerg Infect Dis. 1999 Jan-Feb;5(1):9-17
references.pmid: 10081667
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jun;38(6):2429-33
references.pmid: 10835024
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jun;44(6):2317
references.pmid: 16757652
references.citation: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Oct;11(10):834-7
references.pmid: 16153258