Cited by 122Bacterial Infections and VaccinesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingMicrobial infections and disease research

Detection of Haemophilus influenzae in cerebrospinal fluids by polymerase chain reaction DNA amplification

van Ketel, R. J., de Wever, B., van Alphen, L.·1990·Journal of Medical Microbiology

Abstract

Two primer sets were chosen for the detection of Haemophilus influenzae in cerebrospinal fluid by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNA amplification. One primer set was selected from sequences encoding a capsulation-associated protein and reacted with target DNA from all 15 capsulate H. influenzae strains (all serotypes) examined. The other primer set was selected from the DNA sequence of a gene encoding for outer-membrane protein P6 and reacted with the 15 capsulate and 10 non-capsulate strains of H. influenzae tested. This primer set also reacted with the closely related species H. haemolyticus and H. aegyptius, and with two of nine H. parainfluenzae strains. In reconstruction experiments, PCR DNA amplification was able to detect as few as five H. influenzae cells when 40 cycles of amplification were used. Two hundred cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples collected consecutively from patients suffering from meningitis were investigated by PCR; 40 were culture-positive for H. influenzae and 39 of these were also clearly positive in the PCR test with both primer sets. Contamination occurred to some extent with 40 cycles of amplification but was completely eliminated when the number of cycles was reduced to 35. We conclude that the two primer sets are appropriate for the detection of H. influenzae by PCR, each having its own specificity. When these two primer sets are used, PCR is a technique of equivalent sensitivity to culture for the detection of H. influenzae in CSF.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1099/00222615-33-4-271

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The sensitivity of bexA PCR for Haemophilus influenzae ranged from 81% to 100% with a median of 93%, and specificity ranged from 81% to 100% with a median of 94%.

    “The sensitivity of bexA PCR ranged from 81% to 100% with a median of 93%, with a specificity ranging from 81% to 100% (median 94%) (54, 58, 65–68).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Ketel, R. J., de Wever, B., & van Alphen, L.
Venue
Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published
1990-12-01
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
271-276
ISSN
  • 0022-2615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-5644
OpenAlex
W2089399380
Cited by
122
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
Keywords
Haemophilus influenzae, cerebrospinal fluid, meningitis, PCR detection, primer specificity, Haemophilus haemolyticus, Haemophilus aegyptius, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, PCR contamination
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, DNA, Bacterial, Haemophilus influenzae, Humans, Meningitis, Haemophilus, Molecular Sequence Data, Sensitivity and Specificity, Polymerase Chain Reaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review