Did you mean: geuns leminorella
-
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 1985Leminorella is proposed as a new genus for the group of Enterobacteriaceae formerly known as Enteric Group 57. Strains of Leminorella gave positive tests for H2S...
Leminorella is proposed as a new genus for the group of Enterobacteriaceae formerly known as Enteric Group 57. Strains of Leminorella gave positive tests for H2S production, acid production from L-arabinose and D-xylose, and tyrosine clearing; they were negative for indole production, Voges-Proskauer, urea hydrolysis, phenylalanine deaminase, motility, gelatin liquefaction, lysine and ornithine decarboxylases, arginine dihydrolase, growth in KCN, and acid production from adonitol, D-arabitol, cellobiose, erythritol, D-galactose, myo-inositol, lactose, maltose, D-mannitol, D-mannose, melibiose, alpha-CH3-glucoside, raffinose, L-rhamnose, salicin, D-sorbitol, sucrose, and trehalose. By DNA hybridization, strains of Leminorella were only 3 to 16% related to other Enterobacteriaceae and were divided into three groups. Leminorella grimontii is proposed as the type species for the genus and strain CDC 1944-81, ATCC 33999, is designated as the type strain. There were four strains of L. grimontii from stool specimens and two from urine specimens. L. richardii is proposed as the name for the second species (type strain, CDC 0978-82, ATCC 33998). All four L. richardii strains were from stool specimens. L. grimontii can be distinguished from L. richardii because it produces gas from glucose (100%) and acid from dulcitol (83%) and is methyl red positive (100%). One strain, CDC 3346-72, was more related to L. grimontii by DNA hybridization than to L. richardii, but the lower relatedness to both of these species indicated that it may be a third species. Biochemically it could not be distinguished from L. grimontii. All Leminorella strains were resistant (no zone of inhibition) to ampicillin, carbenicillin, and cephalothin. Some of the Leminorella strains were sent to us for Salmonella serotyping, and two reacted weakly in Salmonella antisera. The clinical significance of Leminorella is unknown.
Topics: DNA, Bacterial; Enterobacteriaceae; Humans; Nucleic Acid Hybridization; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 3972991
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.21.2.234-239.1985 -
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Apr 1994The ability of the RapID onE system (Innovative Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Norcross, Ga.) to identify 364 strains in the family Enterobacteriaceae and 15...
The ability of the RapID onE system (Innovative Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Norcross, Ga.) to identify 364 strains in the family Enterobacteriaceae and 15 oxidase-negative, gram-negative, nonfermentative rods was evaluated. Kits were inoculated with no. 2 McFarland standard suspensions, and reactions were interpreted after 4 h of incubation at 35 degrees C. Overall, the method correctly identified (to the species level or to the genus level for salmonellas and non-Shigella sonnei Shigella species) 363 strains (95.8%) without additional tests. For four strains (1.0%), additional tests were required to delineate the correct identification from a range of two or more possibilities; these included one Serratia liquefaciens (Serratia marcescens or Serratia liquefaciens), one Serratia rubidaea (Serratia rubidaea or Serratia odorifera), one Salmonella typhi (Leminorella richardii or Salmonella sp.) and one Yersinia enterocolitica (Yersinia frederiksenii, Yersinia intermedia, or Yersinia enterocolitica). Twelve strains (3.2%) were misidentified or yielded codes with no identification; these comprised one Citrobacter amalonaticus (no identification), three Enterobacter hormaechei (not in the RapID onE database; two Enterobacter amnigenus, one Enterobacter sp.), one Serratia liquefaciens (Enterobacter cloacae), one Serratia rubidaea (no identification), four Serratia fonticola (not in RapID onE database; two Enterobacter aerogenes, one Serratia marcescens, one not identified), one Proteus mirabilis (Proteus penneri), and one Proteus vulgaris (Providencia rustigianii). If the seven strains not included in the database had been excluded, correct identification rates would have risen to 97.6% without additional tests and 98.7% with additional tests, with misidentification rates dropping to 1.3%. The RapID onE system is easy to set up and the results are easy to read, and the system provides an accurate, nonautomated commercially available method for the same-day identification of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae and oxidase-negative, gram-negative nonfermenters.
Topics: Bacteriological Techniques; Enterobacteriaceae; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Fermentation; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Humans; Oxidoreductases; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 8027345
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.32.4.931-934.1994 -
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 2007We compared the antimicrobial susceptibility testing results generated by disk diffusion and the VITEK 2 automated system with the results of the Clinical and Laboratory... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
We compared the antimicrobial susceptibility testing results generated by disk diffusion and the VITEK 2 automated system with the results of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution (BMD) reference method for 61 isolates of unusual species of Enterobacteriaceae. The isolates represented 15 genera and 26 different species, including Buttiauxella, Cedecea, Kluyvera, Leminorella, and Yokenella. Antimicrobial agents included aminoglycosides, carbapenems, cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, penicillins, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. CLSI interpretative criteria for Enterobacteriaceae were used. Of the 12 drugs tested by BMD and disk diffusion, 10 showed >95% categorical agreement (CA). CA was lower for ampicillin (80.3%) and cefazolin (77.0%). There were 3 very major errors (all with cefazolin), 1 major error (also with cefazolin), and 26 minor errors. Of the 40 isolates (representing 12 species) that could be identified with the VITEK 2 database, 36 were identified correctly to species level, 1 was identified to genus level only, and 3 were reported as unidentified. VITEK 2 generated MIC results for 42 (68.8%) of 61 isolates, but categorical interpretations (susceptible, intermediate, and resistant) were provided for only 22. For the 17 drugs tested by both BMD and VITEK 2, essential agreement ranged from 80.9 to 100% and CA ranged from 68.2% (ampicillin) to 100%; thirteen drugs exhibited 100% CA. In summary, disk diffusion provides a reliable alternative to BMD for testing of unusual Enterobacteriaceae, some of which cannot be tested, or produce incorrect results, by automated methods.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Enterobacteriaceae; Enterobacteriaceae Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 17135429
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01782-06