nitrofigilis and A thereius were recognized [23] This is becaus

nitrofigilis and A. thereius were recognized [23]. This is because contradictory results were seen when using two identification methods in parallel [14, 18]. When using the Houf method [14], A. nitrofigilis produced the expected amplicon for A. skirrowii and A. thereius the amplicon expected for A. cryaerophilus. However, when using the method of Figueras et al. [18] the expected 16S rRNA-RFLP pattern of A. nitrofigilis and A. butzleri was obtained for the A. nitrofigilis and A. thereius strains, respectively. The correct identity of these strains was confirmed as

A. nitrofigilis and A. thereius through sequencing of the 16S rRNA and/or rpoB genes [23]. This sequencing approach resolved the discrepancies SGC-CBP30 observed between the two identification methods [14, 18] and has also led to the discovery of the species A. mytili, A. molluscorum, A. defluvii, A. ellisii,

Arcobacter bivalviorum, A. venerupis, A. cloacae, and A. suis[5–7, 24–26]. The use of the m-PCR method of Douidah et al.[9] in combination with the PCR method of De Smet et al.[17] enabled A. thereius (17.6%, 100/567), A. trophiarum (1.8%, 10/567), and A. cibarius (0.2%, 1/567) to be recognized in two independent studies [27, 28] (Additional file 1: Table S3). Nevertheless, there is a weakness in this approach as the strains of four non-targeted species may be misidentified as the more frequently isolated A. butzleri (Tables 1 and 2). Finally, with regard to studies that used the methodology designed by Kabeya et al. [15], our results revealed that all of the targeted species may have been overestimated; this is because 12 of the 14 non-targeted species could be misidentified (Tables 1 and 2). No studies were found that used the PCR method of Pentimalli et al. [16], and our results indicate that this method is not reliable (Tables 1 and 2). Conclusion In this Thiamet G study, the performance of five different PCR methods used to identify all known Arcobacter spp. has been compared for the first time. None of the compared methods were completely reliable, and they displayed different misidentification rates

for both targeted and non-targeted species; many of which have been described after the publication of the method. The current study has highlighted the limitations of the compared methods. We consider the way forward to be the use of the more reliable methods in parallel for verification of identity of the isolates. Our results suggest that the currently known diversity of Arcobacter spp. in different environments will change in the future as reliable identification methods, such as the updated 16S rRNA-RFLP method [19], are applied. Acknowledgments The authors thank Dr. Maqsudul Alam (University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI,), Dr. Kurt Houf (Ghent University, Selleck CYC202 Belgium), and Dr. Nalini Chinivasagam (Animal Research Institute, Queensland, Australia) for kindly providing Arcobacter strains.

Comments are closed.