Cited by 168Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingWound Healing and TreatmentsActinomycetales infections and treatment

Clinical identification of bacteria in human chronic wound infections: culturing vs. 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing

Open access
Rhoads, Daniel D, Cox, Stephen B, Rees, Eric J, Sun, Yan, Wolcott, Randall D·2012·BMC Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Background: Chronic wounds affect millions of people and cost billions of dollars in the United States each year. These wounds harbor polymicrobial biofilm communities, which can be difficult to elucidate using culturing methods. Clinical molecular microbiological methods are increasingly being employed to investigate the microbiota of chronic infections, including wounds, as part of standard patient care. However, molecular testing is more sensitive than culturing, which results in markedly different results being reported to clinicians. This study compares the results of aerobic culturing and molecular testing (culture-free 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing), and it examines the relative abundance score that is generated by the molecular test and the usefulness of the relative abundance score in predicting the likelihood that the same organism would be detected by culture. Methods: Parallel samples from 51 chronic wounds were studied using aerobic culturing and 16S DNA sequencing for the identification of bacteria. Results: One hundred forty-five (145) unique genera were identified using molecular methods, and 68 of these genera were aerotolerant. Fourteen (14) unique genera were identified using aerobic culture methods. One-third (31/92) of the cultures were determined to be < 1% of the relative abundance of the wound microbiota using molecular testing. At the genus level, molecular testing identified 85% (78/92) of the bacteria that were identified by culture. Conversely, culturing detected 15.7% (78/497) of the aerotolerant bacteria and detected 54.9% of the collective aerotolerant relative abundance of the samples. Aerotolerant bacterial genera (and individual species including Staphylococcus aureus , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and Enterococcus faecalis ) with higher relative abundance scores were more likely to be detected by culture as demonstrated with regression modeling. Conclusion: Discordance between molecular and culture testing is often observed. However, culture-free 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing and its relative abundance score can provide clinicians with insight into which bacteria are most abundant in a sample and which are most likely to be detected by culture.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2334-12-321

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Identification of particular polymicrobial organisms or observation of high protease levels such as MMPs or ADAMs in the wound bed are already being used to modify treatment plans and improve outcomes.

    “The identification of particular polymicrobial organisms (179) or the observation of high protease levels, such as MMPs or ADAMs (a disintegrin and metalloproteinases), found in the wound bed (180) are already being used to modify treatment plans and improve outcomes.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rhoads, D. D., Cox, S. B., Rees, E. J., Sun, Y., & Wolcott, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
  • Southwest Regional Wound Care Center (US)
Corresponding author
Wolcott, Randall D
Venue
BMC Infectious Diseases
Published
2012-11-24
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
321-321
ISSN
1471-2334 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115171049
Cited by
167
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology › Actinomycetales infections and treatment
Keywords
chronic wound infection, wound microbiota, polymicrobial biofilms, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, bacterial identification
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Bacterial Infections, Bacteriological Techniques, Chronic Disease, DNA, Ribosomal, Humans, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, United States, Wound Infection, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques

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