부산대학교 도서관

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2009.10.005 Byline: Megan C. Morgan, Marilyn Boyette, Chris Goforth, Katharine Volpe Sperry, Shermalyn R. Greene Keywords: Clinical bacterial identification; Biolog OmniLog ID System; 16S ribosomal RNA Abstract: The Biolog OmniLog Identification System (Biolog) and the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing methods were compared to conventional microbiological methods and evaluated for accuracy of bacterial identification. These methods were evaluated using 159 clinical isolates. Each isolate was initially identified by conventional biochemical tests and morphological characteristics and subsequently placed into one of seven categories: aerobic Actinomycetes, Bacillus, Coryneforms, fastidious Gram-negative rods (GNR), non-fermenting GNR, miscellaneous Gram-positive rods (GPR), and Vibrio/Aeromonas. After comparison to the conventional identification, the Biolog system and 16S rRNA gene sequence identifications were classified as follows: a) correct to the genus and species levels; b) correct to the genus level only; or c) neither (unacceptable) identification. Overall, 16S rRNA gene sequencing had the highest percent accuracy with 90.6% correct identifications, while the Biolog system identified 68.3% of the isolates correctly. For each category, 16S rRNA gene sequencing had a substantially higher percent accuracy compared to the conventional methods. It was determined that the Biolog system is deficient when identifying organisms in the fastidious GNR category (20.0%). The observed data suggest that 16S rRNA gene sequencing provides a more accurate identification of atypical bacteria than the Biolog system. Author Affiliation: North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, 306 North Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC, United States Article History: Received 20 September 2008; Revised 6 October 2009; Accepted 7 October 2009