St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  • Register / Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture

Thumbnail
View/Open
Falconer_2020_JMM_Bloodstream_CC.pdf (808.3Kb)
Date
03/06/2020
Author
Falconer, Kerry
Hammond, Robert
Gillespie, Stephen H
Keywords
Bloodstream infection
Blood culture and bacterial recovery
QR Microbiology
NDAS
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Introduction. Bloodstream infections (BSI) are growing in incidence and present a serious health threat. Most patients wait up to 48 h before microbiological cultures can confirm a diagnosis. Low numbers of circulating bacteria in patients with BSI mean we need to develop new methods and optimize current methods to facilitate efficient recovery of bacteria from the bloodstream. This will allow detection of positive blood cultures in a more clinically useful timeframe. Many bacterial blood recovery methods are available and usually include a combination of techniques such as centrifugation, filtration, serum separation or lysis treatment. Here, we evaluate nine different bacteria recovery methods performed directly from blood culture. Aim. We sought to identify a bacterial recovery method that would allow for a cost-effective and efficient recovery of common BSI pathogens directly from blood culture. Methods. Simulated E. coli ATCC 25922 blood culture was used as a model system to evaluate nine different bacteria recovery methods. Each method was assessed on recovery yield, cost, hands-on time, risk of contamination and ease of use. The highest scoring recovery method was further evaluated using simulated blood cultures spiked with seven of the most frequently occurring bloodstream pathogens. The recovery yield was calculated based on c.f.u. count before and after each recovery method. Independent t-tests were performed to determine if the recovery methods evaluated were significantly different based on c.f.u. ml−1 log recovery. Results. All nine methods evaluated successfully recovered E. coli ATCC 25922 from simulated blood cultures although the bacterial yield differed significantly. The MALDI-TOF intact cell method offered the poorest recovery with a mean loss of 2.94±0.37 log c.f.u. ml−1. In contrast, a method developed by Bio-Rad achieved the greatest bacterial yield with a mean bacteria loss of 0.27±0.013 log c.f.u. ml−1. Overall, a low-speed serum-separation method was demonstrated to be the most efficient method in terms of time, cost and recovery efficiency and successfully recovered seven of the most frequent BSI pathogens with a mean bacteria loss of 0.717±0.18 log c.f.u. ml−1. Conclusion. The efficiency of bacterial recovery can vary significantly between different methods and thereby can have a critical impact on downstream analysis. The low-speed serum-separation method offered a simple and effective means of recovering common BSI pathogens from blood culture and will be further investigated for use in the rapid detection of bacteraemia and susceptibility testing in clinical practice.
Citation
Falconer , K , Hammond , R & Gillespie , S H 2020 , ' Improving the recovery and detection of bloodstream pathogens from blood culture ' , Journal of Medical Microbiology , vol. 69 , no. 6 , pp. 806-811 . https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
Publication
Journal of Medical Microbiology
Status
Peer reviewed
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001209
ISSN
0022-2615
Type
Journal article
Rights
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. This is an Open Access article published by the Microbiology Society under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Description
The research presented was supported and funded by the University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK.
Collections
  • University of St Andrews Research
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/20247

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter