Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 2012 Aug;50(8):2681–2687. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00621-12

Automated Detection of Toxigenic Clostridium difficile in Clinical Samples: Isothermal tcdB Amplification Coupled to Array-Based Detection

Brian Hicke a,✉, Chris Pasko a, Benjamin Groves a, Edward Ager b, Maylene Corpuz a, Georges Frech a, Denton Munns a, Wendy Smith a, Ashley Warcup a, Gerald Denys c, Nathan A Ledeboer d, Wes Lindsey a, Charles Owen a, Larry Rea a, Robert Jenison a
PMCID: PMC3421499  PMID: 22675134

Abstract

Clostridium difficile can carry a genetically variable pathogenicity locus (PaLoc), which encodes clostridial toxins A and B. In hospitals and in the community at large, this organism is increasingly identified as a pathogen. To develop a diagnostic test that combines the strengths of immunoassays (cost) and DNA amplification assays (sensitivity/specificity), we targeted a genetically stable PaLoc region, amplifying tcdB sequences and detecting them by hybridization capture. The assay employs a hot-start isothermal method coupled to a multiplexed chip-based readout, creating a manual assay that detects toxigenic C. difficile with high sensitivity and specificity within 1 h. Assay automation on an electromechanical instrument produced an analytical sensitivity of 10 CFU (95% probability of detection) of C. difficile in fecal samples, along with discrimination against other enteric bacteria. To verify automated assay function, 130 patient samples were tested: 31/32 positive samples (97% sensitive; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82 to 99%) and 98/98 negative samples (100% specific; 95% CI, 95 to 100%) were scored correctly. Large-scale clinical studies are now planned to determine clinical sensitivity and specificity.

INTRODUCTION

Clostridium difficile is an anaerobic, Gram-positive, spore-forming bacterium. Infection by toxin-producing C. difficile causes a spectrum of disease from mild diarrhea to fulminant pseudomembranous colitis (4, 27). Although C. difficile is apparently an ancient species, having emerged more than 1 million years ago (18), it has been recognized as a human pathogen for only 3 decades (5), with dramatic increases in both hospital- and community-acquired infections in the past decade (6). More than likely, alterations in human behavior such as increased antibiotic use and more frequent hospitalizations have combined with adaptations within the mobile C. difficile genome to generate this pathogenic emergence. Estimated hospital costs per infected patient ranged from $2,500 to $7,000 in the mid-2000s (14, 30). Prior antibiotic treatment increases infection risk, presumably because loss of normal flora enables C. difficile to propagate in a less competitive environment (3).

Toxigenic C. difficile strains contain a pathogenicity locus (PaLoc) that harbors genes encoding the large clostridial toxins A and B (26). Though the individual roles of tcdA and tcdB genes remain a subject of investigation (2), for diagnosis of toxigenic status a stable genetic marker within the PaLoc is the singular requirement. C. difficile maintains a variable/plastic genome (29), and the PaLoc flanking sequences show evidence of insertion by a mobile genetic element (9). Various alterations that leave remnants or mutated forms of both tcdA (16, 25) and the regulatory gene tcdC (8) are described in toxigenic C. difficile isolates, and previously unknown tcdA deletions are still being reported (15). Such variability underscores the diagnostic requirement for a stable toxicity marker(s) within the PaLoc.

Diagnostic testing for toxigenic C. difficile has been traditionally accomplished by time-consuming culture methods and by immunoassays, which are faster but in general do not have sufficient sensitivity. Immunoassays that detect the glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen display high sensitivity but poor specificity for C. difficile. Further, the GDH assays do not determine toxigenic status. This led some laboratories to adopt two-step algorithms in which samples that test GDH positive are further tested to determine whether the identified C. difficile is toxigenic (17). In comparison to such two-step algorithms, molecular tests alone have increased sensitivity/specificity (96%/97%) (21) but are more costly. To combine the advantages of molecular-only and two-step algorithms, we have developed a cost-effective molecular test that couples isothermal DNA amplification to visual chip readout.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primers and probes.

To develop the amplification primers, we sought an evolutionarily conserved genetic region that is common to all toxigenic C. difficile isolates. Twenty-two sequences, including the PaLoc from the five major evolutionary C. difficile branches (18) and the related Clostridium sordellii toxin gene, tcsL (GenBank accession number X82638), were downloaded from GenBank and aligned (CLC Sequence Viewer; CLC Bio, Aarhus, Denmark). Several oligonucleotide primer pairs were designed using previously identified parameters for helicase-dependent amplification ([HDA] IsoAmp II Universal HDA Kit package insert; BioHelix, Beverly, MA). Primer candidates were screened in silico for potential dimer formation (32) as well as for hairpin and self-dimer formation using DNA folding algorithms (35) and an algorithm (Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, IA) that employs nearest-neighbor thermodynamic parameters (28). BLASTN (19) analysis was performed for primer and probes to determine potential cross-reactivity to nontarget sequences.

Primers were screened in HDA reactions (1) for rapid amplification and minimal artifact formation, as judged by product melting point (Tm) and electrophoretic mobility relative to size standards.

To develop an internal control for DNA extraction and amplification, a primer set and capture probe were synthesized that amplify and detect the thermonuclease (nuc) gene of Staphylococcus aureus. Primer sequences for tcdB were 5′-TACAGATGAATATATTGCAGCAACTG[G]TTCA-3′ and 5′-TTGAGCTGTATCAGGATCAAAATAATACTC[C]TCAC (where bracketed letters represent ribonucleotide positions) (targeting GenBank accession number NC_009089.1; tcdB amino acids 2337 to 2362); for nuc the primer sequences were 5′-TGGTAGAAAATGCAAAGAAAATTGAAGTC[G]AGTT and 5′-TCCATCAGCATAAATATACGCTAAGCCA[C]GTCC (targeting GenBank accession number CP000730; amino acids 143 to 175). DNA capture probes were designed using MeltCalc (34), which uses nearest-neighbor calculations to optimize discrimination between sequences. To distinguish amplified tcdB from tcsL, a homologous toxin gene from Clostridium sordellii, a tcdB-specific probe was designed (5′-TTACGTTATTATTGATGGTG, targeting GenBank Accession number NC_009089.1); the predicted Tm for tcdB is 25°C higher than for tcsL. To detect the internal control amplicon, a nuc capture probe (5′-GACAAAGGTCAAAGAACTGA, targeting GenBank accession number CP000730) was also synthesized.

Bacterial strains, genomic DNA, and clinical samples.

Bacterial strains and genomic DNA were purchased from the ATCC (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) or CCUG (Culture Collection, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden). DNA was resuspended in water and quantitated by absorption at 260 nm. Samples were cultured anaerobically on tryptic soy agar plates supplemented with 5% defibrinated sheep's blood (Becton, Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) or in reinforced clostridial medium (Becton, Dickinson) at 37°C. Stool samples were collected and deidentified at clinical sites (Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, and McLendon Clinical Laboratories, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC). Upon receipt at Great Basin Scientific, samples were thawed, and multiple swabs were taken and stored at −70°C. All specimens were collected under institutional review board-approved protocols.

Assay.

Swabs taken from unformed stool samples were vortexed in extraction buffer ([EB] 750 μl of phosphate-buffered saline [PBS]–0.01% Tween 20), filtered using a 3-ml syringe, and heated at 95°C for 5 min in 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, 10 mM KCl, 7.7 mM MgSO4, 40 mM NaCl, 5 mg/ml bovine serum albumin (BSA), and 0.02% Tween 20 (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). Twenty microliters was added to 20 μl of 2× blocked-primer HDA (bpHDA) mix (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.8, 40 mM NaCl, 0.8 mM each dCTP, dGTP, and dTTP, and 6.8 mM dATP), 10 ng/μl thermostable UvrD helicase (Tte-UvrD; BioHelix), 1.6 U/μl glutathione S-transferase (GST) polymerase (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, MA), 2 μl of RN2 Master Mix (Great Basin Corporation), 4 ng/μl extreme thermostable single-stranded DNA binding protein ([ET SSB] New England BioLabs), EvaGreen (used at 0.4×; 1× is the manufacturer-recommended final dilution; Biotium, Hayward, CA), 400 nM and 800 nM tcdB forward and reverse primer, respectively, and 200 nM and 400 nM nuc primers and incubated for 45 min at 65°C (LightCycler 480; Roche, Basel). Doubling time was calculated as described previously (33) from linear regression of a plot of ln(C. difficile cell input) versus crossing point (Cp), where doubling time is ln2/slope. Detection was performed as described previously (22), and images were captured by a digital camera. If control features including detect, hybridization, and nuc each generated signal, the test was determined to be valid. If the tcdB feature generated visible signal, the test result was considered tcdB positive. If the test was valid and the tcdB feature did not signal, the result was tcdB negative.

Automation.

A C. difficile ToxB assay was automated using an analyzer and disposable cartridge (Great Basin Corporation) that performs the DNA extraction, amplification, and detection steps within an enclosed system. A disposable cartridge is manufactured by injection molding, and channels and fluid chambers are formed by adhesion of a clear plastic to the cartridge. A 7-mm2 silicon chip with capture probes is bonded within a detection chamber, blister packs that store liquid reagents are attached, and lyophilized HDA reagents are added. To perform a test, the operator swabs, vortexes the swab in EB, filters, and delivers 180 μl into the cartridge. After the sample port is closed, the cartridge is inserted into the analyzer, sample information is entered, and the test is initiated using a graphical user interface. A lance pierces the blister pack containing extraction buffer, and a plunger compresses the blister, expelling liquid through a mesofluidic (0.5-mm2 cross-sectional area) channel into the extraction chamber. Optical sensors that detect fluid movement trigger plunger motor and temperature control actions. Valves, controlled by two-position linear actuator motors, are closed to isolate the chamber. Mixing is accomplished via a magnetic stir bar, and the sample is heated via direct contact with a heater. A second dilution is performed in the downstream control chamber, again with mixing, and the amplification chamber is filled, rehydrating lyophilized HDA reagents. For isothermal DNA amplification, this chamber is fluidically isolated and maintained at 65 ± 2°C by direct contact with a heat source. For detection, the amplified sample is diluted with hybridization buffer and introduced into a chamber where a 7-mm2 silicon chip is affixed. As for prior steps, fluidic movements and heater control perform the hybridization, washing, and signal development steps. The resulting eye-visible features are captured by a digital camera. Processing and filtering techniques minimize background and maintain the required signal-to-noise level. Multiple custom algorithms query pixel intensity and intensity gradient directionality to determine the presence or absence of a signal on each array feature. Once the optical reader software has determined the presence or absence of signal on each array feature, a call logic tree is used to determine the assay result, which is reported automatically.

Clinical samples were tested with a BD GeneOhm C. difficile PCR assay as the reference method, performed at a clinical site according to the manufacturer's recommendations (Becton, Dickinson). In parallel, the sample was deidentified, blinded, and tested in singlet by the automated C. difficile ToxB assay. Each sample was from a different patient. The lone discrepant result was from a heavily mucoid sample. Upon homogenization with a wooden spatula and repeat testing, the sample was positive for C. difficile ToxB. This sample was therefore resolved as positive and scored as false negative.

To calculate the limit of detection (LoD), logistic regression was used to fit a plot of CFU input versus the observed detection counts, and inverse prediction was used to find the predicted CFU value with a 95% probability of detection.

RESULTS

Isothermal tcdB amplification using blocked primers.

To amplify and detect the tcdB gene of toxigenic C. difficile, the assay (Fig. 1) utilizes helicase-dependent amplification (1) to generate an amplicon which is then hybridized to capture probes, finally generating a visible array pattern. Amplification primers were identified that bind to a 3′ tcdB region that is completely conserved in sequence across 22 GenBank PaLoc sequences (Fig. 2). This region is downstream of a stretch of variable sequence within tcdB (31), in a region where PaLoc sequence variations and insertions/deletions are unknown. An HDA modification termed blocked-primer HDA (bpHDA) was adopted. In bpHDA, DNA polymerase cannot extend primers until an elevated temperature is reached and the primer is deblocked by a thermostable RNase, effectively creating a hot-start condition (Fig. 3A). Standard HDA and bpHDA modes were compared using a tcdB primer set in either blocked or unblocked form. After amplifying 100 copies of input C. difficile genomic DNA, products were analyzed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (Fig. 3B), revealing a high yield of a bpHDA product with the expected mobility. In contrast, standard HDA showed a mixture of primer artifact and expected product at 100 copies of input DNA, with poor reproducibility between replicates.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Assay scheme. (A) Cell lysis releases genomic DNA, which is unwound by a helicase. Primers bind and are extended by a DNA polymerase. After the initial unwinding and primer extension, exponential-phase amplification proceeds continuously at 65°C via helicase unwinding, primer binding, and polymerase extension. As the reaction nears completion, the nonbiotinylated primer is depleted, and the HDA enters an asymmetric phase in which the biotinylated primer produces single-stranded product. (B) Detection. Biotinylated amplified DNA is hybridized to DNA capture probes. A horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated antibody (Ab) binds to biotin, and TMB (3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine) oxidation results in product precipitation, producing a visible feature. (C) Imaging of chip patterns for positive (+) and negative (−) tcdB results. IC, internal control; HC hybridization control; DC, detection control; F, chip orientation feature; Tox, tcdB.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

PaLoc and tcdB alignment. The 20-kb pathogenicity locus with genes and direction of transcription (arrows) is expanded in the targeted tcdB region. Sequences of 22 PaLocs, identified on the left of the figure, are shown. Numbering corresponds to tcdB sequence, where 1 is the start codon. Dots, invariant nucleotides. The bottom sequence represents C. sordellii tcsL.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Blocked-primer HDA. (A) A blocked primer bound to the target sequence cannot be extended by DNA polymerase (circle) due to a 3′ blocking group (X, a 3-carbon spacer). At elevated temperatures, optimally 60 to 70°C, Pyrococcus abyssi RNase H2 is activated, and a ribonucleotide (r) is cleaved, liberating a 3′ hydroxyl group (OH) and allowing primer extension. bpHDA operates at the primer binding step of the Fig. 1 HDA scheme. (B) Gel separation of replicate bpHDA (lanes 1 and 2) and standard HDA (lanes 3 and 4) products, stained with SYBR Gold dye. Lane M, 25-bp DNA ladder. Arrow, mobility of desired amplification product; asterisk, amplification artifact.

Amplification rate.

To examine bpHDA rate and sensitivity, genomic DNA was serially diluted, and the amplification time (Cp) for each template concentration was determined in LightCycler studies. As observed in Fig. 4, amplification doubling time was 28 s. The bpHDA reaction amplified a single copy of genomic DNA with a Cp of 17 min.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

bpHDA amplification rate. Various cell input amounts were amplified by bpHDA, and ln(C. difficile cell count) was plotted against Cp values. The line represents best-fit linear regression.

Assay readout and internal control.

An internal control was integrated that amplifies and detects the S. aureus nuc gene, which is then detected by a nuc-specific capture probe. The nuc amplicon doubling time is slower than that of tcdB, resulting in a 7-min difference in amplification time (Fig. 5). To test whether the coamplifying nuc gene alters assay sensitivity, 4,000 S. aureus CFU were tested using 0, 1, or 10 C. difficile CFU spiked into a pooled C. difficile-negative stool sample. With 0 C. difficile input CFU, nuc amplified and produced a characteristic visual chip pattern. At a C. difficile input of 1 and 10 CFU, the tcdB amplicon efficiently amplified, displaying a distinct chip pattern (Fig. 5). This indicated that 1 CFU could displace amplification of the internal control under these conditions, while lack of target CFU resulted in internal control amplification and detection. Taken together, tcdB and process control features verify assay function and report toxigenic C. difficile status.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Internal control. Cells were spiked into a pooled negative fecal sample. (A) Amplification curves, in triplicate, of 4,000 CFU of the internal control cells (IC; dotted lines) or 4,000 CFU of the internal control cells plus 1 (solid) or 10 (dashed) CFU of C. difficile. (B) Melting analysis of the nine reactions shown in panel A. Amplified material from representative reaction mixtures containing the internal control cells only or the internal control cells plus C. difficile was detected on chips as indicated. The chip legend is shown in Fig. 1C.

Automated assay: analytical sensitivity, specificity, and testing of clinical samples.

An electromechanical instrument and disposable cartridge were developed, and the automated assay was optimized to function equivalently to the manual assay in incubation times and temperatures. The disposable cartridge contains a port for sample introduction, control chambers for heating and mixing to extract DNA, an amplification chamber, and a detection chamber that houses the silicon chip (Fig. 6). After the filtered sample is loaded, the assay is initiated using a graphical user interface. After 90 min, the C. difficile ToxB test result is returned. Analytical sensitivity was addressed using dilutions of cultured C. difficile spiked into a pooled negative stool sample; at 20 CFU input, 20/20 tests were positive. At 10 CFU input, 10/11 tests were positive, and at 4 CFU input, 6/19 tests were positive. Inverse prediction based on a logistic regression model fit to these data indicated that the automated assay detection limit is 10 CFU input to an amplification reaction (95% probability of detection). We then determined assay reactivity toward several C. difficile strains as well as toxigenic C. sordellii and nonclostridial species that can be present in stool samples. Each organism was spiked into a negative stool sample, and subsequent chip readouts indicated that all toxigenic C. difficile strains were detected, while toxigenic C. sordellii, nontoxigenic C. difficile, and nonclostridial species tested negative (Table 1). Finally, to determine the ability to detect toxigenic C. difficile in clinical samples, 130 samples were tested alongside an FDA-approved PCR test. Discrepancies were resolved by toxigenic culture. Of these samples, one false negative was detected among the 32 positive samples, and no false positives were observed, yielding 97% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 82 to 99%) and 100% specificity (95% CI, 95 to 100%). These initial experiments demonstrated automated assay function, paving the way for larger-scale prospective clinical studies.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

Cartridge and analyzer. The injection-molded cartridge, shown resting on a sample loading jig, contains a sample port (A) with hinged lid (B), blister packs containing liquid reagents (C), chambers for extraction (D) and dilution (E) containing magnetic stir bars, an amplification chamber (F), and a detection chamber with a chip (G). After sample loading, the cartridge is sealed using the hinged lid and placed into the analyzer as shown. The analyzer moves fluids through channels connecting the blister packs and control chambers, mixing and heating where needed, and finally capturing a chip image which is processed to return assay results.

Table 1.

Assay specificitya

Organism Strain Toxin production C. difficile ToxB resultb
Clostridium difficile ATCC 43255 A and B Pos
ATCC 43600 A and B Pos
ATCC 43599 A and B Pos
ATCC 17857 A and B Pos
BAA-1805 A and B Pos
BAA-1382 A and B Pos
CCUG 20309 B only Pos
ATCC 43598 B only Pos
ATCC 43593 Neg
Clostridium sordellii ATCC 9714 tcsL Neg
Campylobacter jejuni ATCC 33560 Neg
Citrobacter freundii ATCC 8090 Neg
Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 Neg
Escherichia coli ATCC 4157 Neg
Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 6896 Neg
Proteus vulgaris ATCC 6896 Neg
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 10145 Neg
Salmonella enterica ATCC 13311 Neg
Shigella flexneri ATCC 25929 Neg
Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 12228 Neg
Open in a new tab
a

Organisms were cultured, spiked into a pooled negative fecal sample, and tested.

b

Pos, positive; Neg, negative.

DISCUSSION

To combine the advantages of molecular testing (sensitivity) and immunoassays (low cost), we developed an assay for toxigenic C. difficile that couples isothermal DNA amplification to array-based hybridization. In lieu of monitoring nucleic acid amplification in real time, this approach permits inexpensive detection, requiring only a digital image instead of fluorophore-based detection with accompanying sophisticated optics and algorithms. Multiplexing is accomplished at two levels: at the amplification step and via hybridization to capture probes immobilized on the array. These methods were sufficient for detection of fewer than 10 C. difficile CFU in the context of a fecal sample. The ability of HDA to amplify crude fecal samples is also seen with other crude samples, for example, blood culture (22). Straightforward filtration and automated dilution produce a simple test in which a swab sample is filtered and transferred into the cartridge to initiate testing.

To discriminate toxigenic from nontoxigenic C. difficile bacteria, we identified a PaLoc region that is completely conserved in sequence among known C. difficile isolates. Repetitive elements within tcdA and tcdC contain deletions that reflect the plastic nature of the C. difficile pathogenicity locus. Included within these variants are a nontoxigenic strain that bears a remnant 3′ fragment of tcdA (25); in addition, new tcdA variants are being described (15). There are no known clinical isolates that are TcdA+ TcdB−, whereas virulent TcdA− TcdB+ strains are known. Taken together, these observations indicate that targeting tcdA or tcdC alone could lead to false-positive or false-negative test results unless care is taken to amplify a genetically stable region. Using an alignment of 22 PaLoc genes, including representatives from diverse C. difficile clades (11, 18), primers were designed that amplify a 78-bp target sequence. The tcdB gene is not subject to any known deletions, and therefore the assay result invariably correlates with toxigenic status.

In comparison to the PCR, HDA uses a helicase to separate DNA strands instead of thermal denaturation. The bpHDA enhancement presented here suppresses amplification artifacts by effectively creating a hot-start amplification condition analogous to hot-start PCR approaches. In bpHDA primers are blocked by a 3′ group that prevents DNA polymerase extension. RNase cleavage at an upstream ribonucleotide reveals a 3′ hydroxyl, and the primer can now be extended. Key to the process is a thermostable RNase that is inactive at temperatures below 50°C, as demonstrated in work that comprehensively details use of blocked primers in the PCR (12). Multiplexed HDA without a hot-start approach has been nicely demonstrated in a diagnostic test for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (13), using optimal primer concentrations of 40 to 150 nM but relatively long amplification times of 90 to 120 min. When reaction rates are measured in a real-time HDA mode analogous to real-time PCR, the bpHDA enhancement amplified a single genomic DNA copy in 17 min. The corresponding bpHDA doubling time of 28 s exceeds the theoretical capacity of commercial PCR instruments, which are limited by instrument thermal cycling rates. Instead, the HDA is rate-limited only by enzymatic processes.

A limitation to HDA is that amplicon lengths of <120 bp are generally required. UvrD helicase, such as that used here, has low processivity of ∼40 bp, a possible explanation for the improved efficiency of shorter bpHDA amplicons. Increasing UvrD apparent processivity could increase the practical amplicon length of HDA.

PCR instruments used for moderately complex molecular diagnoses use microfluidics that require high manufacturing precision, precise temperature control for thermal cycling, and sophisticated optics for fluorescence detection. These requirements constrain instrument and test costs. In contrast, the analyzer/cartridge described here provides meso-scale fluidic movement, isothermal amplification, and eye-visible detection. Mesofluidic channels enable injection molding of a single plastic part. The isothermal DNA amplification is tolerant to variations of at least ±2°C, obviating the need for precise and rapid temperature changes that occur, perforce, in the PCR. By use of large visible features, the detection system can employ a digital camera rather than an expensive charge-coupled-device (CCD) imager. Taken together, mesofluidic design, isothermal DNA amplification, and eye-visible detection enable use of off-the-shelf components for analyzer construction, driving down instrument complexity and cost while maintaining ease of use. A limitation to the current automated test is the turnaround time of 90 min after test initiation, while the manual assay is performed in 60 min. The additional time is taken up by motor movements and mechanical calibrations; these factors have since been minimized to produce a 75-min test.

Several assays for C. difficile DNA amplification and detection have been reported. Among these, an HDA method detected 20 copies of purified genomic DNA; because a manual DNA extraction was required and because sensitivity for C. difficile CFU was not reported, it is difficult to compare the two assays directly (10). The automated C. difficile ToxB assay described here, employing bpHDA and a minimal sample preparation procedure, has an LoD of 10 CFU input (at 95% detection confidence), while the manual assay could reliably detect an input as low as 1 CFU. Thus, the bpHDA method is comparable in sensitivity to other PaLoc amplification methods (7, 10, 20, 23, 24), many of which require DNA purification prior to amplification. These experiments demonstrated that the manually developed assay was successfully automated. Initial assessment using clinical samples suggests that this is an accurate test, and large studies are now required to establish clinical sensitivity and specificity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Preston Anderson for preparing and printing silicon wafers, Sheena Dietz for bacterial culture, and Chris High for graphics. Dan Nieuwlandt, Danny Smith, Darin Beutel, Holly Cross, Jeff Antman, John Dunn, Kathy Delianides, Khay Taherkhani, Michael McMahon, Rohini Pantangi, and Qingchun Zhao brought expertise to test automation. Brianne Couturier, Marc Couturier, and Mark Fisher, ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, provided valuable feedback on an initial test version.

Footnotes

Published ahead of print 6 June 2012

REFERENCES

  • 1. An L, et al. 2005. Characterization of a thermostable uvrD helicase and its participation in helicase-dependent amplification. J. Biol. Chem. 280:28952–28958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Ballard JD. 2010. Medical microbiology: a toxin contest. Nature 467:665–666 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Bartlett JG. 2002. Clinical practice. Antibiotic-associated diarrhea. N. Engl. J. Med. 346:334–339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Bartlett JG, Gerding DN. 2008. Clinical recognition and diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46(Suppl 1):S12–S18 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Bartlett JG, Moon N, Chang TW, Taylor N, Onderdonk AB. 1978. Role of Clostridium difficile in antibiotic-associated pseudomembranous colitis. Gastroenterology 75:778–782 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Bauer MP, et al. 2011. Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a hospital-based survey. Lancet 377:63–73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Bélanger SD, Boissinot M, Clairoux N, Picard FJ, Bergeron MG. 2003. Rapid detection of Clostridium difficile in feces by real-time PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:730–734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Bouvet PJM, Popoff MR. 2008. Genetic relatedness of Clostridium difficile isolates from various origins determined by triple-locus sequence analysis based on toxin regulatory genes tcdC, tcdR, and cdtR. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46:3703–3713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Braun V, Hundsberger T, Leukel P, Sauerborn M, von Eichel-Streiber C. 1996. Definition of the single integration site of the pathogenicity locus in Clostridium difficile. Gene 181:29–38 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Chow WHA, et al. 2008. Application of isothermal helicase-dependent amplification with a disposable detection device in a simple sensitive stool test for toxigenic Clostridium difficile. J. Mol. Diagn. 10:452–458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Dingle KE, et al. 2011. Clinical Clostridium difficile: clonality and pathogenicity locus diversity. PLoS One 6:e19993 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Dobosy JR, et al. 2011. RNase H-dependent PCR (rhPCR): improved specificity and single nucleotide polymorphism detection using blocked cleavable primers. BMC Biotechnol. 11:80 doi:10.1186/1472-6750-11-80 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Doseeva V, et al. 2011. Multiplex isothermal helicase-dependent amplification assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 71:354–365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Dubberke ER, Reske KA, Olsen MA, McDonald LC, Fraser VJ. 2008. Short- and long-term attributable costs of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in nonsurgical inpatients. Clin. Infect. Dis. 46:497–504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Elliott B, et al. 2011. New types of toxin A-negative, toxin B-positive strains among clinical isolates of Clostridium difficile in Australia. J. Med. Microbiol. 60:1108–1111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Geric Stare BG, Rupnik M. 2010. Clostridium difficile toxinotype XI (A-B-) exhibits unique arrangement of PaLoc and its upstream region. Anaerobe 16:393–395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Gilligan PH. 2008. Is a two-step glutamate dehydrogenase antigen-cytotoxicity neutralization assay algorithm superior to the premier toxin A and B enzyme immunoassay for laboratory detection of Clostridium difficile? J. Clin. Microbiol. 46:1523–1525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. He M, et al. 2010. Evolutionary dynamics of Clostridium difficile over short and long time scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107:7527–7532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Johnson M, et al. 2008. NCBI BLAST: a better web interface. Nucleic Acids Res. 36:W5–W9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Kato H, Yokoyama T, Kato H, Arakawa Y. 2005. Rapid and simple method for detecting the toxin B gene of Clostridium difficile in stool specimens by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:6108–6112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Novak-Weekley SM, et al. 2010. Clostridium difficile testing in the clinical laboratory by use of multiple testing algorithms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:889–893 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Pasko C, et al. 2012. Staph ID/R: a rapid method for determining Staphylococcus species identity and detecting the mecA gene directly from positive blood culture. J. Clin. Microbiol. 50:810–817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Peterson LR, et al. 2007. Detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in stool samples by real-time polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Clin. Infect. Dis. 45:1152–1160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Peterson LR, et al. 2011. Laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection: light at the end of the tunnel. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 136:372–380 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Rupnik M. 2008. Heterogeneity of large clostridial toxins: importance of Clostridium difficile toxinotypes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 32:541–555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Rupnik M, et al. 2005. Revised nomenclature of Clostridium difficile toxins and associated genes. J. Med. Microbiol. 54:113–117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Rupnik M, Wilcox MH, Gerding DN. 2009. Clostridium difficile infection: new developments in epidemiology and pathogenesis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 7:526–536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. SantaLucia J, Jr, Allawi HT, Seneviratne PA. 1996. Improved nearest-neighbor parameters for predicting DNA duplex stability. Biochemistry 35:3555–3562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Sebaihia M, et al. 2006. The multidrug-resistant human pathogen Clostridium difficile has a highly mobile, mosaic genome. Nat. Genet. 38:779–786 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Song X, et al. 2008. Rising economic impact of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in adult hospitalized patient population. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 29:823–828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Stabler RA, Dawson LF, Phua LTH, Wren BW. 2008. Comparative analysis of BI/NAP1/027 hypervirulent strains reveals novel toxin B-encoding gene (tcdB) sequences. J. Med. Microbiol. 57:771–775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Vallone PM, Butler JM. 2004. Autodimer: a screening tool for primer-dimer and hairpin structures. Biotechniques 37:226–231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Vincent M, Xu Y, Kong H. 2004. Helicase-dependent isothermal DNA amplification. EMBO Rep. 5:795–800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. von Ahsen N, Oellerich M, Armstrong VW, Schütz E. 1999. Application of a thermodynamic nearest-neighbor model to estimate nucleic acid stability and optimize probe design: prediction of melting points of multiple mutations of apolipoprotein b-3500 and factor V with a hybridization probe genotyping assay on the LightCycler. Clin. Chem. 45:2094–2101 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Zuker M. 2003. Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:3406–3415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES