Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Identification of Gram-positive cocci using conventional biochemical methods and API Staph kit

From: Microbiological testing of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics in Egypt

Isolate code Identification based on conventional biochemical tests Identification based on API Staph kit Final conclusion
Result (%ID) Level of discrimination
16A S. epidermidis S. epidermidis (95.3 %) Good S. epidermidis a
16B S. hominis, S. cohnii, S. saprophyticus, S. xylosus, S. simulans or S. warneri S. saprophyticus (64.6 %) Not valid b
17 S. warneri (61.5 %), S. hominis (35.5 %) Good to genus S. warneri or S. hominis c
20A S. epidermidis S. auricularis (83.9 %) Good to genus d
20B S. epidermidis S. epidermidis (96.1 %) Good S. epidermidis a
22 S. epidermidis S. hominis (46 %), S. warneri (21.3 %) Not valid b
23 S. haemolyticus S. haemolyticus (88.9 %) Acceptable S. haemolyticus a
24A Micrococcus spp. Kocuria varians/rosea (97.8 %) Good Kocuria varians a
36 S. hominis, S. cohnii, S. saprophyticus, S. xylosus, S. simulans or S. warneri S. warneri (89.9 %) Good to genus S. warneri a
44 S. warneri (61.5 %), S. hominis (35.5 %) Good to genus S. warneri or S. hominis c
52 S. epidermidis S. chromogenes (72.2 %) Good to genus d
57A S. epidermidis S. epidermidis (98.1 %) Good S. epidermidis a
62 S. hominis, S. cohnii, S. saprophyticus, S. xylosus, S. simulans or S. warneri S. warneri (61.5 %), S. hominis (35.5 %) Good to genus S. warneri or S. hominis c
  1. aMolecular identification was not deemed necessary
  2. bThe isolate was not properly identified by biochemical methods and therefore molecular identification was required
  3. cFurther identification to the exact Staphylococcus sp. using molecular methods was required
  4. dContradictory identification results using biochemical methods necessitate the use of molecular identification