Protocol Online logo
Top : New Forum Archives (2009-): : Microbiology

Fastest way to detect bacteria? - (Sep/05/2012 )

Pages: Previous 1 2 

hobglobin on Mon Sep 24 15:39:28 2012 said:


For 16s rRNA surely universal primers exist.

Yup, that's why I suggested PCR in the first place...

-bob1-

It depends on the matrix from which you want to detect the bacteria and the number. PCR is not that sensitive - requires about 10E3 cfu's worth for a detect so theoretically,a plate count or esp. enrichment would be more sensitive - assuming the microbe can be cultured. Industrial applications typically use enrichment followed by ATP or PCR technologies usually requiring about 24 hours to be confident in detecting viable bacteria present at very low numbers..

-Phil Geis-

I think the fastest way depends on money.

If you have money the fastest way should be identification by mass spectrometry.

Automaton for bacterial identification (by mass spectrometry)
http://www.medicalex...044-449408.html

and the cheapest is API system.
http://www.jlindquis...102bactid2.html

http://loudoun.nvcc....nit_lesson5.htm
-----
Babak Memari

-memari-

Think the question was for detection rather than identification - tho identification would be the next logical step. You'll need a data base that supports mass spec (MALDI) and API systems don;t cover al bacteria.

-Phil Geis-

MS needs culturing, and every method relying on culturing will be, at the very least, biased.

THe same applies to identification by lipid pattern composition

-El Crazy Xabi-

you still need to do sequencing after the 16s rRNA PCR to identify the bacteria, which also needs a few days to get the result.
maybe can use biochemical test kit

-badguy-
Pages: Previous 1 2