PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
In recent years, various diagnostic methods, including culture, immunological detection, conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods, and microarray experiment have been applied for detection of Mycoplasma genitalium and Ureaplasma urealyticum infection. We assayed results of real time PCR and culture of variable clinical samples and evaluated various diagnostic indexes for assessing the clinical usefulness of the Accupower UU Real-Time PCR Kit (Bioneer Corp.) for detection of U. urealyticum/parvum.
Materials and Methods
We surveyed 111 results of culture test and antibiotic sensitivity test of Ureaplasma spp. that were requested to the department of laboratory medicine, National Police Hospital from January to April 2011. The specimens of Ureaplasma spp. were collected from 97 uterine cervical swab samples, 13 urine samples, and one expressed prostate secretion sample. Real-time PCR and culture methods were performed using the Accupower UU Real-Time PCR Kit (Bioneer Corp.) and Mycoplasma IST2 Kit (BioMérieux).
Results
The real-time PCR results showed that 80 clinical specimens were infected with U. urealyticum/parvum. These results were compared with those confirmed by microbiological culture. Compared with the culture, the diagnostic indexes (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) of Accupower UU Real-Time PCR were 88.6%, 38.8%, 48.8%, and 83.9%, and the concordance between the Accupower UU Real-Time PCR Kit and the microbiological culture method was 58.5%.
REFERENCES
1. Stellrecht KA, Woron AM, Mishrik NG, Venezia RA. Comparison of multiplex PCR assay with culture for detection of genital mycoplasmas. J Clin Microbiol. 2004; 42:1528–33.
2. Bae HG, Heo WB, Lee NY, Lee WK, Koo TB. Detection of ureaplasma urealyticum and mycoplasma hominis in pregnant women using MYCOFAST(R) evolution 2 and PCR. Korean J Clin Microbiol. 2003; 6:74–80.
3. Biernat-Sudolska M, Rojek-Zakrzewska D, Lauterbach R. Assessment of various diagnostic methods of ureaplasma respiratory tract infections in newborns. Acta Biochim Pol. 2006; 53:609–11.
4. Xiao L, Glass JI, Paralanov V, Yooseph S, Cassell GH, Duffy LB, et al. Detection and characterization of human Ureaplasma species and serovars by real-time PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48:2715–23.
5. Abele-Horn M, Wolff C, Dressel P, Zimmermann A, Vahlensieck W, Pfaff F, et al. Polymerase chain reaction versus culture for detection of Ureaplasma urealyticum and Mycoplasma hominis in the urogenital tract of adults and the respiratory tract of newborns. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1996; 15:595–8.
6. Blanchard A, Hentschel J, Duffy L, Baldus K, Cassell GH. Detection of Ureaplasma urealyticum by polymerase chain reaction in the urogenital tract of adults, in amniotic fluid, and in the respiratory tract of newborns. Clin Infect Dis. 1993; 17(Suppl 1):S148–53.
7. Luki N, Lebel P, Boucher M, Doray B, Turgeon J, Brousseau R. Comparison of polymerase chain reaction assay with culture for detection of genital mycoplasmas in perinatal infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998; 17:255–63.
8. Waites KB, Katz B, Schelonka RL. Mycoplasmas and ureaplas-mas as neonatal pathogens. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005; 18:757–89.
9. Yoon BH, Romero R, Lim JH, Shim SS, Hong JS, Shim JY, et al. The clinical significance of detecting Ureaplasma urealyticum by the polymerase chain reaction in the amniotic fluid of patients with preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189:919–24.
10. Cao X, Jiang Z, Wang Y, Gong R, Zhang C. Two multiplex real-time TaqMan polymerase chain reaction systems for simultaneous detecting and serotyping of Ureaplasma parvum. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007; 59:109–11.
11. Mallard K, Schopfer K, Bodmer T. Development of real-time PCR for the differential detection and quantification of Ureaplasma urealyticum and Ureaplasma parvum. J Microbiol Methods. 2005; 60:13–9.
12. Yi J, Yoon BH, Kim EC. Detection and biovar discrimination of Ureaplasma urealyticum by real-time PCR. Mol Cell Probes. 2005; 19:255–60.
13. Cao X, Wang Y, Hu X, Qing H, Wang H. Real-time TaqMan polymerase chain reaction assays for quantitative detection and differentiation of Ureaplasma urealyticum and Ureaplasma parvum. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007; 57:373–8.
14. Yoshida T, Deguchi T, Meda S, Kubota Y, Tamaki M, Yokoi S, et al. Quantitative detection of Ureaplasma parvum (biovar 1) and Ureaplasma urealyticum (biovar 2) in urine specimens from men with and without urethritis by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Sex Transm Dis. 2007; 34:416–9.
15. Cheah FC, Anderson TP, Darlow BA, Murdoch DR. Comparison of the Mycoplasma Duo test with PCR for detection of ureaplasma species in endotracheal aspirates from premature infants. J Clin Microbiol. 2005; 43:509–10.
Table 1.
Number of specimens positive for Ureaplasma spp.
| Specimen type | No. of specimens | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tested | Culture positive (%) | PCR positive (%) | |
| Cervical swab | 97 | 40 (41.2) | 68 (70.1) |
| Urine | 13 | 4 (30.7) | 12 (92.3) |
| EPS | 1 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Total | 111 | 44 (39.6) | 80 (72.1) |
Table 2.
Comparison of culture with real-time PCR for detection of Ureaplasma spp.
| Real-time PCR | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive,n(%) | Negativ,n(%) | Total(n) | |
| Culture | |||
| Positive | 39 (35.1) | 5 (4.5) | 44 |
| Negative | 41 (36.9) | 26 (23.4) | 67 |
| Total | 80 (72.1) | 31 (27.9) | 111 |
XML Download