Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.

<h4>Objectives</h4>Conventional microbiological procedures for the isolation of bacteria from biological fluids consist of culture on solid media and enrichment broth. However, these methods can delay the microbiological identification for up to 4 days. The aim of this study was to evalu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Elisa Rubio, Yuliya Zboromyrska, Jordi Bosch, Mariana J Fernandez-Pittol, Berta I Fidalgo, Assumpta Fasanella, Anna Mons, Angely Román, Climent Casals-Pascual, Jordi Vila
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220307
id doaj-cd7daad70a514138a9edf419f085e253
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cd7daad70a514138a9edf419f085e2532021-03-04T10:26:33ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01148e022030710.1371/journal.pone.0220307Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.Elisa RubioYuliya ZboromyrskaJordi BoschMariana J Fernandez-PittolBerta I FidalgoAssumpta FasanellaAnna MonsAngely RománCliment Casals-PascualJordi Vila<h4>Objectives</h4>Conventional microbiological procedures for the isolation of bacteria from biological fluids consist of culture on solid media and enrichment broth. However, these methods can delay the microbiological identification for up to 4 days. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of Sysmex UF500i (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) as a screening method for the detection of bacteria in different biological fluids in comparison with direct Gram staining and the conventional culture on solid media and enrichment broth.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 479 biological fluid samples were included in the study (180 ascitic, 131 amniotic, 56 synovial, 40 cerebrospinal, 36 pleural, 24 peritoneal, 9 bile and 3 pericardial fluids). All samples were processed by conventional culture methods and analyzed by flow cytometry. Direct Gram staining was performed in 339 samples. The amount of growth on culture was recorded for positive samples.<h4>Results</h4>Bacterial and white blood cell count by flow cytometry was significantly higher among culture positive samples and samples with a positive direct Gram stain compared to culture negative samples. Bacterial count directly correlated with the amount of growth on culture (Kruskall-Wallis H χ2(3) = 11.577, p = 0.009). The best specificity (95%) for bacterial count to predict culture positivity was achieved applying a cut-off value of 240 bacteria/μL.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Bacterial and white blood cell counts obtained with flow cytometry correlate with culture results in biological fluids. Bacterial count can be used as a complementary method along with the direct Gram stain to promptly detect positive samples and perform other diagnostic techniques in order to accelerate the bacterial detection and identification.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220307
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Elisa Rubio
Yuliya Zboromyrska
Jordi Bosch
Mariana J Fernandez-Pittol
Berta I Fidalgo
Assumpta Fasanella
Anna Mons
Angely Román
Climent Casals-Pascual
Jordi Vila
spellingShingle Elisa Rubio
Yuliya Zboromyrska
Jordi Bosch
Mariana J Fernandez-Pittol
Berta I Fidalgo
Assumpta Fasanella
Anna Mons
Angely Román
Climent Casals-Pascual
Jordi Vila
Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Elisa Rubio
Yuliya Zboromyrska
Jordi Bosch
Mariana J Fernandez-Pittol
Berta I Fidalgo
Assumpta Fasanella
Anna Mons
Angely Román
Climent Casals-Pascual
Jordi Vila
author_sort Elisa Rubio
title Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
title_short Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
title_full Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
title_fullStr Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
title_sort evaluation of flow cytometry for the detection of bacteria in biological fluids.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description <h4>Objectives</h4>Conventional microbiological procedures for the isolation of bacteria from biological fluids consist of culture on solid media and enrichment broth. However, these methods can delay the microbiological identification for up to 4 days. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of Sysmex UF500i (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) as a screening method for the detection of bacteria in different biological fluids in comparison with direct Gram staining and the conventional culture on solid media and enrichment broth.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 479 biological fluid samples were included in the study (180 ascitic, 131 amniotic, 56 synovial, 40 cerebrospinal, 36 pleural, 24 peritoneal, 9 bile and 3 pericardial fluids). All samples were processed by conventional culture methods and analyzed by flow cytometry. Direct Gram staining was performed in 339 samples. The amount of growth on culture was recorded for positive samples.<h4>Results</h4>Bacterial and white blood cell count by flow cytometry was significantly higher among culture positive samples and samples with a positive direct Gram stain compared to culture negative samples. Bacterial count directly correlated with the amount of growth on culture (Kruskall-Wallis H χ2(3) = 11.577, p = 0.009). The best specificity (95%) for bacterial count to predict culture positivity was achieved applying a cut-off value of 240 bacteria/μL.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Bacterial and white blood cell counts obtained with flow cytometry correlate with culture results in biological fluids. Bacterial count can be used as a complementary method along with the direct Gram stain to promptly detect positive samples and perform other diagnostic techniques in order to accelerate the bacterial detection and identification.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220307
work_keys_str_mv AT elisarubio evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT yuliyazboromyrska evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT jordibosch evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT marianajfernandezpittol evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT bertaifidalgo evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT assumptafasanella evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT annamons evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT angelyroman evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT climentcasalspascual evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
AT jordivila evaluationofflowcytometryforthedetectionofbacteriainbiologicalfluids
_version_ 1714806122856054784