ASM.org | Contact ASM | Submit Content | About the Portal | Login | Social Icons

Search:
Have a question? Get an expert's opinion! Search a database of Q&As by category or tag or use the box above to search by keyword. Can't find your question? Click the "ASK A QUESTION" button to submit your question to the experts.
Feed your Clin Micro curiosity! Dive into the conversation! Browse through the tabs below to read the most recent activity!
Become part of the conversation - registration is easy!
1 Comments

If Corynebacterium species was isolated in pure or significant (predominant) numbers in a urine culture, (pleomorphic GPR, catalase positive)  we would do a urease test. If positive, we reported it as “Corynebacterium sp. urease positive” and performed AST by Etest.( We stopped using API to identify to species level since it had too many variable reactions) If urease negative, we reported as “Corynebactreium sp.urease negative, not a uropathogen”. Now that we have Maldi-TOF as our ID system, we no longer use tube biochemicals and can identify to species level. Recently species other than C.Urealyticum have been implicated in UTI. How can one distinguish a pathogenic species from a non-pathogenic species?  Urea test is not reliable since it is “variable” for many species.The same thing is true for Lactobacillus. If present in pure and predominant numbers and we have the capability of identifying to the species level, how should they be reported?Thank you Manjula MudambiStanford Healthcare, California

Asked by: 42 views , ,
Culture, Urine