Skip to main content

Table 2 Identification results obtained for 95 strains of 17 Arcobacter spp. when using the five different PCR identification methods

From: Performance of five molecular methods for monitoring Arcobacter spp

Species Strainsa Houf et al. [14] Kabeya et al. [15] Figueras et al. [18]b Pentimalli et al. [16] Douidah et al. [9]
De Smet et al. [17]c
A. butzleri (Ab) 21 21 Ab 1 Abd 21 Ab 21 Ab 21 Ab
15 Ab + Acr1Be
5 NAf
A. cryaerophilus (Acr) 19 19 Acr 19 Acr 12 Acr 19 Acr 19 Acr
7 Ab
Acr1A (n=6)    5 Acr1Ad 6 Acry1Ad   
1 Acr1B
Acr1B (n=6)    5 Acr1B 6 Acry1B   
1 Acr1A
A. skirrowii (Aski) 5 5 Aski 5 Aski 5 Aski 3 Askid,g 5 Aski
2 NA
A. nitrofigilis (Anit) 5 5 Aski 4 Acr1Bd 5 Anit 2 Ab NA
1 Ab + Acr1B 2 Acr
3 NA*d
A. halophilus (Ahalo) 1 1 Aski + Acr 1 Aski 1 Ahalo NA* NA
A. cibarius (Acib) 8 8 NA 3 Askid 8 Acib 8 Ab 8 Acib
5 Aski + Acr1B 8 Acib
3 Aski
A. thereius (Ather) 5 5 Acr 1 Ab 5 Ab 5 NA* 5 Ather
2 Ab + Acr1Bd
1 Acr1B
1 NA
A. mytili (Amyt) 3 3 Aski 3 Aski 3 Amyt 3 NA* 3 NA
A. marinus (Amar) 1 1 Acr 1 NA 1 Amarh 1 Ab 1 NA
A. molluscorum (Amoll) 3 3 Aski + Acr 3 NA 3 Amoll 3 NA* 3 NA
A. defluvii (Adef) 11 11 Acr 11 Ab 11 Adef 11 NA*d 11 Ab
A. trophiarum (Atroph) 3 3 Acr 2 Abd 3 Ab 3 NA* 3 Atroph
1 NA
A. ellisii (Aelli) 3 3 Acr 3 Acr1A + Acr1B 3 Aelli 2 Aski 1 Ab
1 NA*d 2 Ab +Acrd
A. bivalviorum (Abiv) 3 3 Acr 3 Acr1B 3 Abiv 3 NA 3 NA
A. venerupis (Aven) 1 1 Acr 1 Ab 1 Avenh 1 Ab 1 Ab
A. cloacae (Acloa) 2 2 Acr 2 Ab + Acr1B 2 Acloa 2 NA* 2 NA
A. suis (Asuis) 1 1 Acr 1 Acr1A 1 Adef 1 NA 1 Ab
Correctly identified strains   53 (55.8%) 31 (32.6%) 79 (83.2%) 79 (83.2%) 79 (83.2%)
  1. aAll strains were identified using the RFLP method of Figueras et al. [19] that had been specifically designed to recognize all species. The new species Arcobacter anaerophilus was not tested as it had only recently been described [8]. However, a computer simulation of the digestion of the 16S rRNA gene sequence of the type strain of this species (Accession number FR686494) using the MseI endonuclease [18, 19] showed a species-specific RFLP pattern (658, 138, 60, 52, 41, 34, 28, 12, 3 bp).
  2. bAs this method was designed for A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. cibarius, A. skirrowii, A. nitrofigilis and A. halophilus[18], the results for strains of other species were interpreted based on the RFLP patterns described in subsequent publications [57, 2325].
  3. cThe method designed by De Smet et al.[17] only detects or identifies A. trophiarum, and was intended to complement the m-PCR of Douidah et al.[9]. Therefore, they are grouped together as a single method.
  4. dResult obtained for the type strain.
  5. eSpecies A + species B refers to the fact that the expected amplicon for species A and B were obtained in the same reaction.
  6. fNA or NA*: No amplification of a band of the expected size, or (*) band/s of another size were obtained.
  7. gWhen different results were obtained using the four individual PCR reactions designed by Pentimalli et al. [16] for A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. skirrowii, and A. cibarius, they are shown on separate lines.
  8. hA. venerupis produced a pattern very similar to that of A. marinus[19].