Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T07:32:08.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Use of Spoligotype Analysis to Detect Laboratory Cross-Contamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Beth Nivin*
Affiliation:
New York City Department of Health, Tuberculosis Control Program, New York City, New York
Jeffrey Driscoll
Affiliation:
New York State Department of Health, Wadsworth Center, New York City, New York
Tom Glaser
Affiliation:
New York City Department of Health, Tuberculosis Control Program, New York City, New York
Pablo Bifani
Affiliation:
Public Health Research Institute, New York City, New York
Sonal Munsiff
Affiliation:
New York City Department of Health, Tuberculosis Control Program, New York City, New York
*
Tuberculosis Control Program, New York City Department of Health, 225 Broadway, 22nd Floor, New York City, NY 10007

Abstract

Spoligotype analysis identified false-positive isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis caused by laboratory cross-contamination. Spoligotyping is faster, is less expensive than DNA fingerprinting, and can be used with a variety of media. Patients were reevaluated and had medications discontinued as a result of this investigation. Months of unnecessary patient follow-up and treatment were avoided.

Type
Concise Communications
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Braden, CR, Templeton, GL, Stead, WS, Bates, JH, Cave, MD, Valway, SE. Retrospective detection of laboratory cross-contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures with use of DNA fingerprint analysis. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:3540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Frieden, TR, Woodley, CL, Crawford, JT, Lew, D, Dooley, SM. The molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in New York City: the importance of nosocomial transmission and laboratory error. Tuber Lung Dis 1996;77:407413.Google Scholar
3.Wurtz, R, Demairais, P, Trainor, W, McAuley, J, Kocka, F, Mosher, L, et al. Specimen contamination in mycobacteriology laboratory detected by pseudo-outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: analysis by routine epidemiology and confirmation by molecular technique. J Clin Microbiol 1996;34:10171019.Google Scholar
4.Burman, WJ, Stone, BL, Reves, RR, Wilson, ML, Yang, Z, El-Hajj, H, et al. The incidence of false-positive cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:321325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Nivin, B, Fujiwara, PI, Hannifin, J, Kreiswirth, BN. Cross-contamination with Mycobacterium tuberculosis: an epidemiological and laboratory investigation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:500503.Google Scholar
6.Nivin, B, Kaye, K, Munsiff, SS. Detection of laboratory cross-contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures. Clin Infect Dis 1997;25:943.Google Scholar
7.Goual, M, Saunders, NA, van Embden, JD, Young, DB, Shaw, RJ. Differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates by spoligotyping and IS6110 restriction fragment length polymorphism. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35:647651.Google Scholar
8.Kamerbeek, J, Schouls, L, Kolk, A, van Agterveld, K, van Soolingen, D, Kuijper, S, et al. Simultaneous detection and strain differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for diagnosis and epidemiology. J Clin Microbiol 1998;35:907914.Google Scholar
9.Driscoll, JR, McGarry, MA, Taber, HW. DNA typing of a nonviable culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a homeless shelter outbreak. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:274275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.van Embden, JD, Cave, MD, Crawford, JT, Dale, JW, Eisenbach, KD, Gicquel, B, et al. Strain identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by DNA fingerprinting: recommendations for a standardized methodology. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:406409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed