Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRobertson, G
dc.contributor.authorSorenson, A
dc.contributor.authorGovan, B
dc.contributor.authorKetheesan, N
dc.contributor.authorHoughton, R
dc.contributor.authorChen, H
dc.contributor.authorAuCoin, D
dc.contributor.authorDillon, Michael
dc.contributor.authorNorton, R
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-16T14:42:43Z
dc.date.available2021-09-16T14:42:43Z
dc.date.issued2015-08-01
dc.identifier.issn0022-2615
dc.identifier.issn1473-5644
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/17809
dc.description.abstract

The rapid diagnosis of septicaemic melioidosis will have an impact on reduction of mortality. Currently, this relies almost exclusively upon culture of the causative agent Burkholderia pseudomallei from clinical samples. In acute sepsis, blood is the preferred specimen for culture and therefore should be the target for a rapid diagnostic tool. A lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) for the detection of B. pseudomallei antigen has been developed. This was compared with molecular detection using the targets T3SS1 and IpxO. Forty-five clinical samples of EDTA blood, which were culture-positive, were tested using both modalities. The LFI had a sensitivity of 40 %, whilst molecular detection had a sensitivity of 20 %. The poor performance of molecular detection has been described previously and is largely related to the use of whole-blood specimens collected into blood tubes containing EDTA. Whilst suboptimal, the LFI would be an adjunct in the rapid diagnosis of melioidosis.

dc.format.extent845-848
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMicrobiology Society
dc.subjectAntigens, Bacterial
dc.subjectBlood
dc.subjectBurkholderia pseudomallei
dc.subjectChromatography, Affinity
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMelioidosis
dc.subjectMolecular Diagnostic Techniques
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectTime Factors
dc.titleRapid diagnostics for melioidosis: a comparative study of a novel lateral flow antigen detection assay
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeComparative Study
dc.typeEvaluation Study
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055557
plymouth.issue8
plymouth.volume64
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalJournal of Medical Microbiology
dc.identifier.doi10.1099/jmm.0.000098
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dc.identifier.eissn1473-5644
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1099/jmm.0.000098
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV