Microbiological testing of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics in Egypt

BMC Microbiology

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

Isolate code	Identification based on conventional biochemical tests	Identification based on API Staph kit		Final conclusion
Isolate code	Identification based on conventional biochemical tests	Result (%ID)	Level of discrimination	Final conclusion
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

^aMolecular identification was not deemed necessary
^bThe isolate was not properly identified by biochemical methods and therefore molecular identification was required
^cFurther identification to the exact Staphylococcus sp. using molecular methods was required
^dContradictory identification results using biochemical methods necessitate the use of molecular identification

ISSN: 1471-2180