Table 2.
Identification results obtained for 95 strains of 17 Arcobacter spp. when using the five different PCR identification methods
| 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%) |
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).
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 [5-7,23-25].
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.
dResult obtained for the type strain.
eSpecies A + species B refers to the fact that the expected amplicon for species A and B were obtained in the same reaction.
fNA or NA*: No amplification of a band of the expected size, or (*) band/s of another size were obtained.
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.
hA. venerupis produced a pattern very similar to that of A. marinus[19].