» Articles » PMID: 28761489

The Impact of Different Copro-preservation Conditions on Molecular Detection of Species

Overview
Specialty Parasitology
Date 2017 Aug 2
PMID 28761489
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: We aimed to evaluate different copro-preservation conditions along the duration of one month for a better outcome of molecular diagnosis of species.

Methods: Ten samples out of 380 fresh stool samples collected from patients with diarrhea proved positive after direct examination, concentration, staining and confirmed by immunochromatographic test. The study was conducted at the Diagnostic and Research Unit of Parasitic diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University at the time interval from July 2014 to December 2015. Each stool sample was preserved in five different conditions; freezing at -20 °C, 70% ethyl alcohol, 10% formalin, 2.5% potassium dichromate (K dichromate) at 4 °C and 2.5% K dichromate at room temperature (RT). Then DNA extraction and nested PCR, with oocyst wall protein (COWP) gene were done from each sample at zero time (fresh specimens) as a standard for comparison with the preservation conditions at 10, 20 and 30 d.

Results: Sensitivity of studied preservative conditions along the whole study duration showed best outcome from freezing at -20 °C (80%) then K dichromate (4 °C) (73.3%) followed by K dichromate (RT) (66.7%), then alcohol (33.3%), while formalin was the worst (0%) with a highly significant comparative outcome between the different conditions. Along the three extraction intervals, K dichromate (RT), unlike all the rest of conditions lacks the consistent preservative action.

Conclusion: Our study highlights freezing at -20 °C to be the most suitable condition for preservation followed by K dichromate at 4 °C, K dichromate at RT, then 70% ethyl alcohol. Formalin (10%) is better to be avoided.

Citing Articles

Identification and Evaluation of Species from New York City Cases of Cryptosporidiosis (2015 to 2018): a Watershed Perspective.

Alderisio K, Mergen K, Moessner H, Madison-Antenucci S Microbiol Spectr. 2023; 11(1):e0392122.

PMID: 36688660 PMC: 9927359. DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.03921-22.


High Diversity of Species and Subtypes Identified in Cryptosporidiosis Acquired in Sweden and Abroad.

Lebbad M, Winiecka-Krusnell J, Stensvold C, Beser J Pathogens. 2021; 10(5).

PMID: 33926039 PMC: 8147002. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens10050523.


Cryptosporidiosis: A zoonotic disease concern.

Pumipuntu N, Piratae S Vet World. 2018; 11(5):681-686.

PMID: 29915508 PMC: 5993756. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2018.681-686.

References
1.
Al-Braiken F, Amin A, Beeching N, Hommel M, Hart C . Detection of Cryptosporidium amongst diarrhoeic and asymptomatic children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2003; 97(5):505-10. DOI: 10.1179/000349803235002470. View

2.
Henriksen S, Pohlenz J . Staining of cryptosporidia by a modified Ziehl-Neelsen technique. Acta Vet Scand. 1981; 22(3-4):594-6. PMC: 8300528. View

3.
Kato S, Lindergard G, Mohammed H . Utility of the Cryptosporidium oocyst wall protein (COWP) gene in a nested PCR approach for detection infection in cattle. Vet Parasitol. 2003; 111(2-3):153-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-4017(02)00353-9. View

4.
Jongwutiwes S, Tiangtip R, Yentakarm S, Chantachum N . Simple method for long-term copro-preservation of Cryptosporidium oocysts for morphometric and molecular analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 2002; 7(3):257-64. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2002.00854.x. View

5.
Holland J, Louie L, Simor A, Louie M . PCR detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 directly from stools: evaluation of commercial extraction methods for purifying fecal DNA. J Clin Microbiol. 2000; 38(11):4108-13. PMC: 87549. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.38.11.4108-4113.2000. View