title: Investigations on the efficacy of routinely used phenotypic methods compared to genotypic approaches for the identification of staphylococcal species isolated from companion animals in Irish veterinary hospitals.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Identification of Staphylococci to species level in veterinary microbiology is important to inform therapeutic intervention and management. We report on the efficacy of three routinely used commercial phenotypic methods for staphylococcal species identification, namely API Staph 32 (bioMérieux), RapID (Remel) and Staph-Zym (Rosco Diagnostica) compared to genotyping as a reference method to identify 52 staphylococcal clinical isolates (23 coagulase positive; 29 coagulase negative) from companion animals in Irish veterinary hospitals.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Genotyping of a 412 bp fragment of the staphylococcal tuf gene and coagulase testing were carried out on all 52 veterinary samples along with 7 reference strains. In addition, genotyping of the staphylococcal rpoB gene, as well as PCR-RFLP of the pta gene, were performed to definitively identify members of the Staphylococcus intermedius group (SIG). The API Staph 32 correctly identified all S. aureus isolates (11/11), 83% (10/12) of the SIG species, and 66% (19/29) of the coagulase negative species. RapID and Staph-Zym correctly identified 61% (14/23) and 0% (0/23) respectively of the coagulase-positives, and 10% (3/29) and 3% (1/29) respectively of the coagulase-negative species.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Commercially available phenotypic species identification tests are inadequate for the correct identification of both coagulase negative and coagulase positive staphylococcal species from companion animals. Genotyping using the tuf gene sequence is superior to phenotyping for identification of staphylococcal species of animal origin. However, use of PCR-RFLP of pta gene or rpoB sequencing is recommended as a confirmatory method for discriminating between SIG isolates.
authors: Biosciences Research Institute, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Co. Westmeath, Ireland ; Department of Life and Physical Science, School of Science, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Ireland.
authors: Lisa
authors: L
authors: Geraghty
authors: Biosciences Research Institute, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Co. Westmeath, Ireland ; Department of Life and Physical Science, School of Science, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Ireland.
authors: Mary
authors: M
authors: Booth
authors: Biosciences Research Institute, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Co. Westmeath, Ireland.
authors: Neil
authors: N
authors: Rowan
authors: Biosciences Research Institute, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Co. Westmeath, Ireland ; Department of Life and Physical Science, School of Science, Athlone Institute of Technology, Dublin Rd., Athlone, Ireland.
authors: Andrew
authors: A
authors: Fogarty
keywords: Companion animals; Genotyping; Staphylococci species identification; rpoB; tuf
references: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Mar;30(3):343-54
references: 20967479
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2005 May;43(5):2286-90
references: 15872257
references: Vet Microbiol. 2009 Feb 16;134(1-2):29-36
references: 18977615
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Feb;44(2):413-6
references: 16455893
references: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005 Apr;51(4):237-44
references: 15808314
references: Vet J. 1998 Mar;155(2):183-8
references: 9564272
references: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005 Jul;55(Pt 4):1569-1573
references: 16014483
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997 Aug;41(8):1788-93
references: 9257762
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Dec;39(12):4296-301
references: 11724835
references: Vet Microbiol. 2011 Jan 10;147(1-2):142-8
references: 20667671
references: Vet Microbiol. 2006 Jun 15;115(1-3):148-55
references: 16464540
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Mar;48(3):765-9
references: 20053855
references: Vet Microbiol. 2009 Feb 16;134(1-2):20-8
references: 18930607
references: J Appl Microbiol. 2004;97(2):271-84
references: 15239693
references: Vet Microbiol. 2007 Jul 20;123(1-3):238-44
references: 17400408
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1019-25
references: 18174295
references: Perit Dial Int. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):340-6
references: 21454395
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Feb;47(2):469-71
references: 19091817
references: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007 Jan;57(Pt 1):25-30
references: 17220435
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Dec;49(12):4142-9
references: 21998419
references: Vet Microbiol. 2004 Jan 14;98(1):23-7
references: 14738778
references: Vet Rec. 2006 Feb 4;158(5):155-9
references: 16461622
references: Meat Sci. 2000 Dec;56(4):321-9
references: 22062161
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Jan;48(1):192-201
references: 19889901
references: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Nov;59(3):251-7
references: 17662561
references: Zoonoses Public Health. 2011 Dec;58(8):533-9
references: 21824350
references: J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2000 Nov;47(9):683-91
references: 11244869
references: Syst Appl Microbiol. 2003 Sep;26(3):423-33
references: 14529185
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Apr;40(4):1333-8
references: 11923353
references: Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;12(2):333-6
references: 16494767
references: Vet Microbiol. 2009 Mar 2;134(3-4):327-33
references: 18930604
references: Vet Microbiol. 2011 May 12;150(1-2):173-9
references: 21333468