Detection of bacterial DNA in synovial fluid in dogs with arthritis: a comparison between bacterial culture and 16S rRNA polymerase chain reaction.
Canine
Incubation
Joint fluid
Paediatric blood culture bottles
Polymerase chain reaction
Septic arthritis
Synovia
Journal
Acta veterinaria Scandinavica
ISSN: 1751-0147
Titre abrégé: Acta Vet Scand
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370400
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2021
30 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
12
06
2020
accepted:
22
08
2021
entrez:
31
8
2021
pubmed:
1
9
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Septic arthritis (SA) is a serious condition in dogs that requires a prompt diagnosis and treatment to minimize long-term joint pathology. Although bacterial detection in synovial fluid (SF) through culture or cytology is often performed to confirm diagnosis, the sensitivity of these tests is low. The need for a reliable diagnostic tool to confirm the presence of bacteria in SF in humans has led to the increased use of 16S rRNA (i.e., ribosomal RNA) gene sequencing by polymerase chain reaction (16S rRNA PCR). The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of 16S rRNA PCR with bacterial culture on blood agar plates after pre-incubation of SF in paediatric blood bacterial culture bottles to identify bacteria in dogs with clinical signs of SA and to investigate the usefulness of these methods as diagnostic tools. Ten dogs with clinical signs of SA, nine with osteoarthritis (OA, control group) and nine with clinical signs of immune-mediated polyarthritis (IMPA, second control group) were examined. Bacterial culture was positive in seven of 10 dogs with clinical SA, of which only two were positive by 16S rRNA PCR. The sensitivity of 16S rRNA PCR and bacterial culture analysis for dogs with clinical SA were 20% and 70%, respectively. All SF samples collected from control group (n = 9) and second control group (n = 14) animals were negative on culture, and 16S rRNA PCR rendered a specificity of 100%. Our study showed a lower sensitivity of 16S rRNA PCR than bacterial culture for dogs with clinical SA. Our findings suggest that there is currently no advantage in using 16S rRNA PCR as a diagnostic tool for dogs with clinical SA. Furthermore, our study indicates that pre-incubation in paediatric blood bacterial culture bottles before bacterial cultivation on blood agar plates might enhance bacterial culture sensitivity compared to other culture methods.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Septic arthritis (SA) is a serious condition in dogs that requires a prompt diagnosis and treatment to minimize long-term joint pathology. Although bacterial detection in synovial fluid (SF) through culture or cytology is often performed to confirm diagnosis, the sensitivity of these tests is low. The need for a reliable diagnostic tool to confirm the presence of bacteria in SF in humans has led to the increased use of 16S rRNA (i.e., ribosomal RNA) gene sequencing by polymerase chain reaction (16S rRNA PCR). The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of 16S rRNA PCR with bacterial culture on blood agar plates after pre-incubation of SF in paediatric blood bacterial culture bottles to identify bacteria in dogs with clinical signs of SA and to investigate the usefulness of these methods as diagnostic tools.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ten dogs with clinical signs of SA, nine with osteoarthritis (OA, control group) and nine with clinical signs of immune-mediated polyarthritis (IMPA, second control group) were examined. Bacterial culture was positive in seven of 10 dogs with clinical SA, of which only two were positive by 16S rRNA PCR. The sensitivity of 16S rRNA PCR and bacterial culture analysis for dogs with clinical SA were 20% and 70%, respectively. All SF samples collected from control group (n = 9) and second control group (n = 14) animals were negative on culture, and 16S rRNA PCR rendered a specificity of 100%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed a lower sensitivity of 16S rRNA PCR than bacterial culture for dogs with clinical SA. Our findings suggest that there is currently no advantage in using 16S rRNA PCR as a diagnostic tool for dogs with clinical SA. Furthermore, our study indicates that pre-incubation in paediatric blood bacterial culture bottles before bacterial cultivation on blood agar plates might enhance bacterial culture sensitivity compared to other culture methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34461947
doi: 10.1186/s13028-021-00599-7
pii: 10.1186/s13028-021-00599-7
pmc: PMC8404341
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Bacterial
0
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Jan;39(1):275-279
pubmed: 31489513
Vet Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;31(5):428-34
pubmed: 12209413
Aust Vet J. 2015 Jun;93(6):204-7
pubmed: 26010926
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2018 Nov;31(6):488-493
pubmed: 30300912
Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Mar;60(3):287-9
pubmed: 11171695
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004 Apr 15;224(8):1323-7
pubmed: 15112783
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013 Sep;19(9):822-8
pubmed: 23957786
Anal Biochem. 2009 Nov 1;394(1):132-4
pubmed: 19549501
Arthritis Res Ther. 2008;10(2):R40
pubmed: 18412942
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Mar;37(3):502-505
pubmed: 30593442
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014 Jul;69(7):464-8
pubmed: 25029577
Aust Vet J. 1999 Apr;77(4):233-7
pubmed: 10330553
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Apr;69(4):390-5
pubmed: 21396534
Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Oct;42(10):2198-203
pubmed: 10524694
Vet Surg. 1989 Jul-Aug;18(4):300-3
pubmed: 2672551
Vet Microbiol. 2010 Feb 24;141(1-2):127-33
pubmed: 19758772
J Mol Diagn. 2019 Sep;21(5):913-923
pubmed: 31229651
J Mol Diagn. 2005 Nov;7(5):575-81
pubmed: 16258155
Microb Pathog. 2007 Feb-Mar;42(2-3):47-55
pubmed: 17320342
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1998 May;24(2):227-36
pubmed: 9606756
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Sep;48(9):3435-7
pubmed: 20592151
J Infect. 2007 Dec;55(6):510-7
pubmed: 18029022
Mol Biotechnol. 1995 Dec;4(3):227-37
pubmed: 8680929
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2002 May;9(3):508-14
pubmed: 11986253
Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Sep;25(7):749-52
pubmed: 17870475
Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Feb;8(2):188-94
pubmed: 11897072
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2003 Jan;33(1):153-78
pubmed: 12512381
Can Vet J. 2008 Dec;49(12):1195-203
pubmed: 19252711
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 May;38(5):1747-52
pubmed: 10790092
Aust Vet J. 2015 Jun;93(6):200-3
pubmed: 26010925
Vet Surg. 2013 Oct;42(7):814-8
pubmed: 24033641
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Mar;44(3):1018-28
pubmed: 16517890
Can J Vet Res. 2013 Jul;77(3):211-7
pubmed: 24101798
Infection. 2014 Apr;42(2):385-91
pubmed: 24318567
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Sep;(414):69-88
pubmed: 12966280
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992 Sep 15;201(6):886-8
pubmed: 1399798
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Apr;46(4):1386-90
pubmed: 18305128
J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2011 Jul-Aug;47(4):280-4
pubmed: 21673329
Vet Microbiol. 2011 Mar 24;148(2-4):308-16
pubmed: 21036494
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Oct;48(10):3624-7
pubmed: 20720022
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2015;28(5):301-5
pubmed: 26058798
Arthritis Res Ther. 2003;5(1):R1-8
pubmed: 12716447
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Mar;50(3):583-9
pubmed: 22170934
J Small Anim Pract. 2005 Apr;46(4):171-6
pubmed: 15835235
Clin Rheumatol. 2019 Jul;38(7):1985-1992
pubmed: 30850963
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1977 Sep 15;171(6):549-52
pubmed: 914687
J Clin Lab Anal. 2010;24(3):175-81
pubmed: 20486199
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jul 13;13:91
pubmed: 23848987
Vet J. 2007 Jan;173(1):73-8
pubmed: 16146700