the specific identification of staphylococcus aureus with new fluorescence in situ hybridization...
Post on 26-Oct-2015
40 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The specific identification of
Staphylococcus aureus with new
fluorescence in situ hybridization
(FISH) methods
By
Thomas Sutherland Lawson
A thesis submitted to Macquarie University
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Science
January 2012
Examiner’s Copy
iii
Unless otherwise indicated, the material in this thesis-
by-publication is original and the work of the candidate.
The findings of the thesis were based on investigations
at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Tests were
performed with the approval of the University Biosafety
Committee (09/14/LAB and 5201000927) and were lim-
ited to pure cultures of patient isolates at a non-clinical
location. Its Chapters contain sections that were pub-
lished in peer-reviewed Journals and are included as such.
To comply with Journal requirements, sections may dif-
fer in their format or contain material that overlaps. In
some instances the page size and byline of the original
publication was modified so that it could be integrated
into the thesis. The thesis did not italicize Latin expres-
sions that have common English usage such as in situ, in
vivo or in vitro. It followed the American convention for
spelling and the citation style of the Journal of Clinical
Laboratory Analysis (Online ISSN: 1098-2825).
Thomas Sutherland Lawson
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Russell Connally, Dr. Jon
Iredell, Associate Professor Subramanyam Vemulpad and Professor Jim Piper.
The staff and students at the Faculty of Science, Macquarie University and at the
Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital are thanked for
their help. I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the manuscripts submitted
to journals for their helpful feedback. Finally, thanks to my family and friends for their
support.
I would like to acknowledge the Australian Research Councils Linkage Projects
(LP0775196) for funding this research and the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility
for providing laboratory facilities.
v
vi Acknowledgements
List of publications and awards
Published manuscripts:
1. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. In silico evaluation and testing
of fluorescence in situ hybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus.
Lab Med 2011;42:587-591 (Chapter 3) (1).
2. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Optimization of a two-step
permeabilization fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for the detection
of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:359-365. (Chapter 3) (2).
3. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Express fluorescence in situ hy-
bridization methods for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin lab 2011;57:789-
794 (Chapter 3) (3).
4. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Detection of Staphy-
lococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situ hybridization that does not require
lysostaphin. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:142-147. (Chapter 4) (4).
5. Lawson T, Connally R, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-
NaCl fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus.
Lett Appl Microbiol 2012;10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03197.x:(in press). (Chap-
ter 4). (5).
6. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. In reference to targeted imag-
ing modality selection for bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis and different
biofilms, different disease? a clinical outcomes study. Laryngoscope 2011;121:2043-
2044. A) (6).
7. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, Piper JA. The simultaneous detection and
differentiation of staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in
vii
viii List of publications and awards
situ hybridization: A comment. Med Princ Pract 2011;20:390-391. (Appendix
A) (7).
Candidate contribution to the above manuscripts: concept (75%), experimental (100%),
analysis of results (85%) and writing (80%).
Conference proceeding:
1. Hamey LG, Connally RE, Yen SW, Lawson TS, Piper JA, Iredell JR, Lumines-
cent microspheres resolved from strong background on an automated Time-Gated
luminescence microscopy workstation. DICTA 2009 2009;1:223-228. (8).
The candidate contributed 5% to this manuscript’s concept, analysis and writing.
Awards:
1. Automated pathogen detection using time-gated luminescence microscopy, ICS
APAI PhD Scholarship, Macquarie University, 2008 to 2011.
2. Commercialization training scheme (CTS) Scholarship and Postgraduate Certifi-
cate in Entrepreneurship, Macquarie University, 2008 to 2009.
3. FABLS Support Scheme for Emerging Research Projects, Macquarie University,
2008.
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is a common bacterium associated with potentially serious
infections affecting both humans and other mammals. It is of particular concern that
SA can rapidly develop resistance to a range of antibiotics. Consequently, SA can cause
death and severe disability as a result of treatment failure. Antibiotic resistant SA is
especially prevalent in modern hospitals. For these reasons the capacity to rapidly
identify SA in patients is a crucial endeavor. The rapid identification of SA plus
information about its sensitivity to specific antibiotics can be lifesaving.
A range of laboratory based techniques are available for the identification of pathogens
such as SA. However, these current techniques have important limitations. These lim-
itations include (i) initial inadequate specificity and (ii) a delay by days of the precise
identification of the pathogen. As a result initial treatment of possible infections with
SA is usually based on broad clinical judgments and not precise information. These
clinical judgments usually lead to the use of broad spectrum antibiotics which may
have modest or no impact.
These are the reasons for this current project whose aim is to develop techniques
which offer (i) specificity concerning the identity of the pathogen infecting a patient
and (ii) rapid results.
In order to achieve these aims we have sought to further develop and optimize
an established laboratory technique - fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). This
technique is most commonly used following the outcomes of a blood culture to identify
suspect pathogens such as SA. The use of FISH in this context is to confirm the accuracy
of the diagnosis based on the blood culture and Gram-stain. The positive attributes of
FISH include its applicability to a range of specimen types plus its accuracy, robustness,
short turnaround time and its ability to offer in situ (cellular location of the pathogen
in the specimen) information.
In technical terms FISH binds oligonucleotides to its complementary nucleotide
sequence targets, usually 16S rRNA. The oligonucleotides are then usually visualized
ix
x Abstract
by fluorochrome labels and an epifluorescent microscope.
There are limitations to analyses based on FISH. There are delays in the use of FISH
because of the need to first complete a blood culture. This requirement is to make sure
the number or load of microbes is sufficiently high to allow accurate detection. The
assay is usually not automated and requires handling by a technician. In addition, the
establishment of FISH techniques can be complex and the costs can be high if dedicated
equipment is purchased. Finally, routine FISH techniques may lead to the inhibition
and obscuring of the signals generated by FISH. It is because of these limitations that
FISH is rarely used in clinical diagnostics.
Accordingly, the aim of this project was to overcome these limitations and to develop
FISH as a viable diagnostic tool. The specific aim was to investigate the accurate and
rapid identification of SA with FISH techniques.
SA was chosen as the subject and target of this investigation firstly because of
its clinical importance, and secondly because it is potentially a difficult pathogen to
detect with DNA based FISH techniques. Here, it should be noted that SA is frequently
misidentified with coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). In addition, if refined and
redeveloped FISH techniques can identify SA, it can be reasonably assumed that the
same or similar techniques would be effective with most other common and important
pathogens.
There are three outcomes of this project.
(i) The existing FISH method for detecting SA was improved (Chapter 3). New
probe sequences for FISH that were specific to SA were identified. These probes had
binding and formamide requirements that were more useful than the existing sequences
that are commonly reported and used. High-yield fluorophores were found to label SA
with a high and consistent signal intensity and were also more resistant to photo-
bleaching.
New techniques for the preparation of FISH were developed which facilitate the ap-
plication of FISH. These techniques eliminate tedious and time-consuming preparation
for FISH assays. This was achieved by the development of premixed materials. The
adhesion of the specimen containing SA to glass slides was improved. The need for
xi
adequate cell adhesion to glass slides is a technical issue with FISH that is not widely
recognized. This technical issue of cell adhesion can be directly linked to the accuracy
of the FISH assay. Resolution of this technical problem has been shown in this project
to allow detection of SA with much less cell loss and with the considerable benefit that
SA at lower numbers could be detected.
A two-step permeabilization treatment using lysozyme and lysostaphin was devel-
oped which was useful if high molecular weight probes were used. This approach
shortened the time needed for hybridization incubation when smaller probes were used.
These techniques have previously been reported. However, past approaches have been
substantially improved and optimized so that SA integrity could be maintained and
the FISH assay could be completed in one hour instead of several hours. This is a
considerable achievement with potential advantage to patients with serious infections.
Tests were run to determine if the time taken to conduct conventional FISH assays
could be substantially reduced. A range of techniques were developed all aimed at
reducing the time taken to conduct FISH assays. These techniques included the com-
bination of existing permeabilization steps. These developments were successful. It
was possible to detect by FISH techniques the presence of SA in 24 minutes (in place
of the current 45 to 127 minutes) and to complete a Gram-stain and follow up FISH
test within one hour of a positive blood-culture.
(ii) New approaches to FISH were tested (Chapter 4). Improving the existing tech-
nique is useful, but does not extend the potential of the assay. A FISH technique that
can detect SA with DNA probes in the absence of permeabilization with lysostaphin
was developed. Lysostaphin is a significant burden to the routine use of FISH to de-
tect SA. It can be costly and its handling, storage and application are difficult. When
lysostaphin was omitted, the permeabilization step was simplified. Usually when FISH
was run, two permeabilization treatment arms were needed, one for SA and another
for other Gram-positive bacteria. With DNA probes and this new technique, only one
was required for the detection of Gram-positive bacteria.
A FISH method was developed that detected SA in the absence of formamide with
urea-based reagents. Urea is non-toxic and so its handling and disposal is simpler and
xii Abstract
it can be used in both the hybridization and washing reagents. Previously, the washing
step had to rely solely on NaCl to remove partly bound oligonucleotides. When urea
was used, the FISH signal was more intense and non-specific binding was minimized.
Possibly urea is partially permeabilizing the SA and more effectively removing unbound
probe. Because of the attributes of urea, FISH could be run entirely on a hot-plate with
a precise temperature control. This removed the need for the conventional dedicated
incubator and water-bath.
(iii) A FISH assay was developed that could detect SA in a complex autofluorescent
blood specimen using a europium chelate and time-gated luminescence microscopy
(TGLM) (Chapter 5). Specimens were prepared for testing with TGLM by spiking
fresh whole-blood with SA and incubating. The SA was then separated from most of
the blood and detected with conventional oligonucleotide probes and FISH and with
a europium (Eu3+) probe and time-gated luminescence microscopy (TGLM). Eu3+
probes and TGLM provided higher clarity than the conventional probe as most of the
background signal or autofluorescence from the specimen was suppressed.
The technique developed for the separation of SA from the spiked blood sample was
simple, rapid and accurate, collecting nearly all the intra and inter-cellular SA. The
separated SA remained viable and could be cultured in nutrient broth. Cultures of
the separated SA became turbid more rapidly than cultures of the unseparated spiked
blood sample.
The central aim of this research project, namely, the enhancement of the use of
FISH for the rapid detection of SA, was achieved. The existing FISH methodology
and techniques were greatly enhanced and new methods including a TGLM technique
for the use of FISH in highly autofluorescent specimens were successfully developed.
Increased permeabilization of SA for FISH and DNA probes was achieved. As other
bacteria need less or no permeabilization, the findings are likely to be applicable to
other pathogens. Accordingly, extension of these investigations and additional testing
of patient specimens in clinical settings is the next important step.
Contents
Acknowledgements v
List of publications and awards vii
Abstract ix
List of Figures xvii
List of Tables xix
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Rationale for the present project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Septicemia and S. aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Diagnosis and treatment of S. aureus septicemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.1 Standard diagnostic pathway for septicemia and its limitations . 4
1.3.2 Possible improvements to S. aureus septicemia diagnostics . . . 6
1.3.3 The role of fluorescence microscopy in diagnosing S. aureus sep-
ticemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Improving the FISH for identification of S. aureus directly in blood
cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.1 Recent developments in FISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.2 Limitations of FISH as applied to S. aureus . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5 Improvements required for the application of FISH in the detection of
S. aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5.1 Re-engineering FISH for the detection of S. aureus . . . . . . . 18
1.5.2 Issues concerning the use of FISH for the detection of S. aureus
in complex samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.6 Outline of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
xiii
xiv Contents
2 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes 27
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples . . . . . . . . . 31
2.1.1 Hybridization and post-hybridization washing buffer preparation 31
2.1.2 In Silico Evaluation and Testing of FISH 16S rRNA Probes for
S. aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.1.3 In situ probing of S. aureus with specific 16S rRNA targeted
oligonucleotides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.1.4 Bacterial isolates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.1.5 Separation of S. aureus from an in vitro model of bacteraemia . 41
2.2 Step 1: Method for adhering specimens to slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Step 2: S. aureus fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4 Step 3: S. aureus permeabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5 Step 4: In situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted, fluorescently labeled
oligonucleotides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.6 Step 5: Specimen washing with buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.7 Direct visualization of microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.7.1 FISH image and statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3 Improvements to the existing FISH method 51
3.1 In silico evaluation and testing of fluorescence in situ hybridization 16S
rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2 Optimization of a two-step permeabilization fluorescence in situ hy-
bridization assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . 59
3.3 Express fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for the detection of
Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4 Development of new FISH methods 75
4.1 Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situ hybridiza-
tion that does not require lysostaphin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2 Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl fluorescence in situ hybridization
(FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Contents xv
5 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label 87
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescence in
situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . 87
5.1.1 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.1.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.1.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6 Conclusion 103
A Appendix A: Other publications that emerged from the thesis 109
A.1 In reference to targeted imaging modality selection for bacterial biofilms
in CRS and different biofilms, different disease? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
A.2 The simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylococcus species
in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization . . . . . . . . 114
B Appendix B: Analysis of common oligonucleotides used in the detec-
tion of S. aureus with FISH 117
List of abbreviations 123
References 125
xvi Contents
List of Figures
1.1 Time-gated Giardia lamblia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.2 Schema of time-gated luminescence microscopy (TGLM) . . . . . . . . 23
2.1 Probe melting temperature and efficiency by formamide concentration . 33
2.2 Binding affinity of 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25 base oligonucleotides . . . . . . 39
2.3 Melting temperature of the Staaur probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.1 SA cultures labeled with BHTEGS and visualized with TGLM . . . . . 96
5.2 SA and SE incubated and labeled with the BHTEGS chelate in blood . 97
5.3 SA labeled with BHTEGS and Alexa with Figure 5.4 plot locations . . 98
5.4 Plots of the TGLM and conventional FISH signal . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
xvii
xviii List of Figures
List of Tables
1.1 Advantages and limitations of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) 10
1.2 FISH studies that have identified SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 FISH method typically used for the detection of bacteria . . . . . . . . 30
2.2 Washing buffer NaCl (M) by hybridization buffer formamide (%) . . . . 35
2.3 Guide to judging the performance of a probe sequence . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1 S/N calculations of a BHTEGS and a conventional probe . . . . . . . . 100
B.1 Binding affinity of the EUB338 probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
B.2 Binding affinity of the KT18-16S68 probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
B.3 Binding affinity of the Staaur probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
B.4 Binding affinity of the Staphy probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
xix
xx List of Tables
1Introduction
1.1 Rationale for the present project
Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is a Gram-positive bacterium ubiquitous in the environ-
ment and in humans and is linked to infection with high rates of morbidity and mor-
tality (9, 10, 11). It is persistent in the upper respiratory tract, is easily transmitted
in hospitals (12) and is often resistant to many antibiotics (9, 13). SA is the most
common cause of septicemia, that is, an infection of the blood (referred to as Staphylo-
coccus aureus bacteremia or SAB) (14), and is also associated with invasive procedures
(15).
Identification of SA as the cause of septicemia is difficult (16). The symptoms of
a SA infection can be inconsistent (17). The foci of infection may not be found and
other coagulase negative staphylococci (CONS) such as S. epidermidis (SE), a common
contaminant of blood cultures (18), can mimic its features (19). Rapid blood tests can
confirm infection, but not identity of the pathogen (20). Tests that can identify SA are
usually much slower (21) as they need culturing first (22). Septicemia if severe, needs
immediate treatment (16). The initial treatment is, therefore, based on presumptive
diagnosis (23) and maybe incorrect (24) and the infection clearance delayed (25). A
solution is to use diagnostic tests that are both rapid and accurate (26, 27, 28).
1
2 Introduction
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is an accurate and rapid test for the
identification of intact SA in specimens (29). The technique often involves hybridizing
slide-based fluorescent labeled DNA probes to in situ rRNA (30) sequences of SA in
blood cultures (Table 1.2). Labeled SA is then visualized with fluorescence microscopy
(31). It can be applied either to cultures (32) or directly to specimens that are not
cultured (33). Automation is simpler if peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-based probes are
used and the SA detected with a flow-cytometer (34, 35).
There are certain limitations to the use of FISH as a test for SA which may explain
why it is not reported more often in routine diagnostics (23, 36, 31). Limitations
include: the preparation of its reagents can be exacting and time-consuming (37, 38).
The sensitivity of the assay is low (39, 40) and usually necessitates its application to
blood cultures which take two days to complete (41). Material other than SA in the
specimen (42, 43) can hinder access of the probes to SA and can obscure its signal
(44, 45). The natural emission of the specimen (referred to as autofluorescence) can
interfere with the signal from the probe (46, 47). There are other tests for SA detection
which, although not as accurate or quick as FISH and do not visualize SA, nonetheless
are simple and inexpensive to perform (48, 49, 50, 51).
The project investigates the use of FISH for the detection of SA and its differen-
tiation from the coagulase negative staphylococci (CONS) Staphylococcus epidermidis
(SE) (19). There were three aims to this research. The first was to improve the cur-
rent FISH protocols for the identification of SA in blood cultures (37, 52, 32). Blood
cultures was chosen as it is the most tested specimen (Table 1.2) (41, 18).
The second aim of the project was to re-engineer the FISH procedure. Improvements
to a conventional technique are useful, but are usually incremental. Radical alternatives
to the conventional FISH reagents, equipment and procedure were tested in order to
achieve significant gains to its performance.
The third aim was to reduce interference of the FISH signal from non-target material
in the specimen (43, 47). The tests performed in the project and the changes made to
the FISH assay were aimed at making its use in routine microbiology for the detection
of SA more practical.
1.2 Septicemia and S. aureus 3
1.2 Septicemia and S. aureus
Septicemia is a common infection and a type of sepsis where pathogens have invaded
the blood-stream (53, 54). It is a serious condition which can be fatal and SA is its
most common cause (55). The frequency and role of SA in septicemia is related to its
potential virulence (13). SA can remain viable both within the body and on surfaces
for many months (12). Its highly cross-linked peptidoglycan and capsule layer makes
it hardy and resistant to antibacterial reagents (12). SA is easily transmitted from
surfaces to people and between people and can evade and inhibit the immune system
(56). It can quickly develop antibiotic resistance and share this resistance with other
stains of SA (27, 13). It has been suggested that because of its ubiquity, SA could
serve as a hygiene indicator in laboratories that wish to maintain sterility (12).
The diagnosis and treatment of SA related septicemia has improved with time (25),
but its incidence remains high (53, 54). Its control in hospitals has proven difficult to
achieve (10). A third of surfaces (12) and a third of otherwise healthy people tested
were found to be positive for SA (57). The number of invasive procedures carried
out in hospitals has risen (54) and patients with strains of SA resistant to first-line
antibiotics have become more common (55). This increase in resistance is related to
the acquisition of genes that make SA less susceptible to antimicrobials (13).
Strains of SA can be categorized as community acquired methicillin resistant SA
(CA-MRSA) and hospital-acquired MRSA (HA-MRSA) (58). CA-MRSA is mostly
acquired by the young in the community, transmitted via people and shared items,
resistant to β-lactams, but sensitive to other antibiotics, presents with skin and soft
tissue infection and possesses the SCCmec gene (type IV or V) (13). HA-MRSA
is mostly acquired by the elderly in health facilities, transmitted via patients and
staff, resistant to most antibiotics, presents with bacteraemia, wound infections and
infections of the respiratory and urinary tracts and possesses the SCCmec gene (type
I, II or III) (13). The frequency, virulence and ability to resist treatment suggest that
for now, SA related infections will remain a major health issue (59, 25).
4 Introduction
1.3 Diagnosis and treatment of S. aureus septicemia
High risk patients with suspected septic shock and septicemia need immediate treat-
ment (54). Each hour of delay in its treatment substantially increases the rate of mortal-
ity (10, 60). The choice of initial antibiotics is occasionally ’hit or miss’ (23) with major
adverse consequences if the treatment is incorrect (24, 25). Cefazolin, flucloxacillin,
nafcillin and oxacillin are the antibiotics commonly given if methicillin-sensitive SA
(MSSA) is suspected and vancomycin if MRSA is suspected (16). Treatment is con-
tinued for one to two weeks and is not stopped until the patient is symptom-free (25).
If the response is poor, the antibiotic treatment is changed or rotated (16).
At the start of treatment the identity the etiologic pathogen might be suspected,
but is not usually known (20). The initial examination and empiric data is used to
inform treatment (23), but this is not specific to the patient and cannot confirm the
identity and susceptibility of the pathogen (26, 24, 17). Even with incomplete diagnosis,
most antibiotic treatment is adequate against SA and other prevalent pathogens (23,
9). Misdiagnoses and incorrect treatment (23), however remain the most common
causes of avoidable death due to sepsis (24, 17). Poor diagnosis can also contribute to
increasing the resistance of SA to antibiotics (25). This suggests that early diagnosis
of septicemia that can also identify the etiologic pathogen is important for effective
treatment (26, 10).
1.3.1 Standard diagnostic pathway for septicemia and its lim-
itations
If the patient is febrile and septicemia is suspected, blood is collected and antibiotic
treatment started (26, 16). The blood can then be tested to confirm infection and
the identity of the pathogen (21). Initial tests applied directly to whole-blood such as
coagulation screening, C-reactive protein, full blood count, liver function and urea and
electrolytes are rapid and simple to perform (27, 16). They can indicate an infection
(16), but they cannot establish the identity of the etiologic pathogen.
1.3 Diagnosis and treatment of S. aureus septicemia 5
The role of blood culture in diagnosing septicemia
Further microscopy, culturing and a variety of tests help to identify the cause of sep-
ticemia and its susceptibility to antibiotic treatment (22, 61). Blood cultures can be
run with an automated continuous-monitoring blood culture system (20, 41) to con-
firm an infection and increase its pathogen numbers (60). Other more accurate tests
can then be applied to identify the pathogen (27, 22). Blood cultures are necessary
for these confirmatory tests, but delay their start by two days and can be inaccurate
(62, 28, 60, 21, 18). Blood cultures may not detect an infection if the pathogen in the
blood is slow-growing and produces a false-negative result (63, 24) or they may detect
a contaminant such as SE from skin flora inoculated at the time of blood collection
(18) and produce a false-positive result (64, 65). Thus, the tests that follow a blood
culture, although highly accurate and rapid themselves (22) such as FISH (32), are
compromised somewhat by their necessity for blood cultures (60, 21, 18).
The role of Gram-stain for the detection of septicemia
Once it has become positive, blood culturing is followed by a Gram-stain (16). The
Gram-stain uses reagents to stain the microbes so that they can be observed with a
light microscope fitted with a 40× or higher objective. (66). Gram-staining is simple
and rapid (10 to 20 minutes) to complete and can be reasonably accurate, indicating
the presence of bacteria (48). Gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli (EC)
stain red-pink and SA and other Gram-positive bacteria stain blue-violet (48). SA can
be identified as it is observed as a 1 µm diameter spheres and that regularly form tetrad
clusters (48). However, because SE and other coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS)
contaminants are similar in appearance and also stain blue-violet (66), they are often
misidentified as SA (19). In spite of this drawback, if the patient is not responding
well, antibiotic treatment for septicemia is modified on the basis of the Gram-stain
report (23, 66, 61).
6 Introduction
The role of confirmatory and antibacterial susceptibility tests
To confirm the identity of SA, tests are run after the Gram-stain and completed the
same day (65, 67). Tube coagulase (51) and DNase (51) biochemical tests are com-
monly performed as they are rapid and inexpensive (50); both tests can be completed
with some accuracy (22) in two to four hours (67). These tests, however do not directly
visualize the SA (49) and can be relatively inaccurate (22) unless performed in conjunc-
tion with other tests (67). Tests to determine the resistance of SA to antibiotics such
as chromogenic media, Mueller-Hinton agar or the disc diffusion test (22), are started
after Gram-staining, but are not completed until the next day (27). The confirmatory
and susceptibility tests that follow a blood culture rarely inform the current antibiotic
treatment (23) or change its outcome (68). Rather the value of these tests is to confirm
diagnosis and inform the treatment of future infections (26).
1.3.2 Possible improvements to S. aureus septicemia diagnos-
tics
Blood cultures and Gram-stains are adequate for most septicemia diagnoses (18), but
they do not identify SA or its susceptibility to antibiotics (66). Reliance on these two
procedures may become less acceptable as the number of resistant strains of SA in-
creases (55, 54). The tests that can confirm the identity of SA and its susceptibility
cannot be completed fast enough after a blood culture to play a role in the patient’s
treatment (67). Attempts have been made to address these shortcomings (69). Solu-
tions are focused on developing tests for SA that are applied directly to whole-blood
(70) or improving the confirmatory tests applied to blood cultures (65). Possibly, iden-
tification of etiologic pathogens in whole-blood has the most potential (21), but the
problems are still technically complex and difficult to solve (70).
1.3 Diagnosis and treatment of S. aureus septicemia 7
1.3.3 The role of fluorescence microscopy in diagnosing S. au-
reus septicemia
Although recently not the focus of diagnostics (71), because of the accuracy and sim-
plicity of its procedures (28), fluorescence microscopy might be a promising avenue for
investigation (72). Fluorescent microscopes are more expensive than their equivalent
bright-field microscopes, but this cost is decreasing (73) and they are now common in
microbiology laboratories (74). Non-specific fluorescent stains, such as acridine-orange
(AO) (Sigma, A6014) (1 µg/ml of AO in 1 µM of acetic acid and sodium acetate)
(75), are simpler and faster (5 minutes) to apply than Gram-stains (10 to 20 minutes)
as they can be completed in a single incubation step and can be more accurate (71).
Nonetheless, fluorescent staining has the same constraint as Gram-staining, namely
these stains indicate, but do not distinguish SA from CoNS (71).
Assessment of the value of immunofluorescence microscopy in the diagnosis
Another fluorescent technique, immunofluorescence, usually takes longer than Gram-
stain to complete (15 to 30 minutes), but is as simple to apply as a general fluorescent
stain (76). Like the general fluorescent stain, its procedure can include a single incuba-
tion step at room temperature followed by a quick rinse to remove unbound probe (77).
Unlike Gram-staining and general fluorescent staining, immunofluorescence can posi-
tively identify SA. The technique binds fluorochrome conjugated antibodies to antigens
specific to SA on its cell wall (78). If the SA is in a suspension (referred to as plank-
tonic) such as a blood culture (18), immunofluorescence can be completed as rapidly
as a Gram-stain (Virostat, 6883) (78).
Despite its ability to directly visualize and identity SA, it may not be possible to
apply immunofluorescence consistently to SA and this might explain why it is reported
infrequently. Virulence factors in SA disrupt the formation of antibodies to SA and the
binding of antibodies to SA (56). SA antigen expression is inconsistent between strains
and, with changes to its micro-environment or phase of growth, can differ within a single
strain (56). SA inhibits formation and binding of antibodies by forming a capsular or
8 Introduction
slime layer (79), congregating in clusters (48) or biofilms (80) and expressing Protein
A (81).
Initial work carried out during the project (data not shown) applied commercial
monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies against SA to cultures of clinical isolates of SA.
A single product, a rabbit polyclonal antibody conjugated to FITC (Virostat, 6883)
(78) identified the SA tested and did not react with isolates of SE, a finding that was
repeated elsewhere (82, 77). It was not known if this was a true antibody to antigen
binding or a rabbit immunoglobulin G to Protein A binding (83, 77). Furthermore,
these results were inconsistent; when the same product in a biotinylated (Virostat,
6887) and in an unconjugated (Virostat, 6881) form were tested, they failed to bind.
For these reasons, the use of immunofluorescence to identify SA in routine diagnostics
might be impractical (56).
1.4 Improving the FISH for identification of S. au-
reus directly in blood cultures
At 45 minutes (32), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), takes longer to complete
than immunofluorescence, but its identification of SA can be more robust (76). Both
assay types have similar characteristics for the determination of SA. They can confirm
with certainty the presence of SA, detect SA in situ (with reference to the specimen)
(19) and, although often performed, do not need culturing (33). Both methods have
limitations, of which those for immunofluorescence were already touched on. In the
case of FISH, its reagent preparation and optimization can be complex and, if con-
ventionally applied, cannot distinguish between sub-strains (31, 38). There is also a
fundamental difference between the two assays. Unlike immunofluorescence, which la-
bels cell-wall antigens exterior to the pathogen, FISH labels nucleic sequences interior
to the pathogen (44). This simplifies its interaction with SA and allows its labeling of
SA to be consistent (76). The advantages and limitations of the identification of SA
with FISH are detailed in Table 1.1.
1.4 Improving the FISH for identification of S. aureus directly in bloodcultures 9
The FISH assay creates the conditions necessary for the hybridization of a probe
sequence (referred to as an oligonucleotide) to its in situ complementary sequence (30).
Flurophore conjugated DNA is hybridized to 16S rRNA to identify pathogens such as
SA from the species-level through to the domain-level (29). FISH can detect unknown
pathogens in situ, whose culturability is also unknown, without disturbing the matrix
of the specimen (44, 84). The assay can thus provide in situ data of the relationship
between SA, its host and other pathogens (85). Even if first cultured, it is possible to
identify SA by its growth patterns in the culture media as they usually form tetrad
clusters demonstrable in Gram stained smears (48, 79).
The slide and DNA-based FISH procedure commonly used to identify SA (32) is
completed in five steps: (i) specimen preparation (42, 86, 43), where slides are pre-
pared, spotted with the collected (and possibly cultured) specimen; (ii) fixation of the
specimen, usually with an alcohol (32); (iii) permeabilization, where SA is permeabi-
lized with lysozyme and lysostaphin enzymes (87); (iv) hybridization of the probe to
SA (88); (v) and washing, where unbound probe is removed (87). If the final slide
rinse, cover-slip mounting and microscopy is also included, the assay is completed in
six, not five steps (44). Thus, the FISH assay itself is relatively simple to perform.
What can complicate its routine use is its setup and quality control and the access of
probes to targets in complex specimens (Table 1.1).
10 Introduction
Table 1.1: Advantages of using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to detect SAand its limitations (36).
Advantages Limitations
A range of frequently encountered mi-crobes can be targeted with FISH 16SrRNA probes (64).
Microbe targets need to be predeter-mined. Probes for SE are limited intheir availability and accuracy (39, 40).
SA can be differentiated at the specieslevel (87).
Resistant strains of SA cannot be dif-ferentiated from non-resistant strains(32).
SA can be tested for directly in whole-blood (ISH) (62), stool (89), sputum(90) and urine (33) specimens withouta culturing step.
Sensitivity limit is approximately 103
to 104 cfu/ml (39, 91, 33, 40).
Assay is relatively reliable and robust(52).
Known SA and SE controls are neededwith each test batch (37).
Multiple probes can be applied at thesame time (45, 64).
Probes need similar formamide concen-trations to be applied together (92).
Assay can detect SA from blood cul-tures in 45 minutes (32).
Blood cultures on average delay FISHfor 2 days (60). Simple tube coagulase(22) and DNase (49) tests can be com-pleted in 2 to 4 hours (67).
Assay simple to perform if reagents arepremixed and stored before start.
Complex manual handling required forreagent preparation and optimization(93) and, if slide-based, is difficult tofully automate (94).
Expense per test is relatively low ifDNA probes are used (50).
Tube coagulase (22) and DNase (49)tests are less expensive (50).
Small quantities of probes and lytic en-zymes are used per slide.
Probes and lytic enzymes are expensiveto first source (95).
Assay does not need a relatively largeamount of bench-space.
An (epi)fluorescent microscope is re-quired to visualize the cells.
1.4 Improving the FISH for identification of S. aureus directly in bloodcultures 11
1.4.1 Recent developments in FISH
The disadvantages of the FISH assay listed in Table 1.1 were addressed to some extent
by recent advances to its procedure and use in blood cultures for e.g. (18).
An online resource for the optimization of probe sequences for SA (and other
pathogens) as well as the conditions of their incubation was made available by Yil-
maz et al. (92) (mathfish.cee.wisc.edu). This resource makes it possible to rapidly test
probes in silico (performed on computer) (84, 96) against the 16S rRNA sequences of
SA (97). Locations on the SA 16S rRNA sequence with the highest affinity for bind-
ing can be identified (98) and then tested against complementary sequences of various
lengths. Once the most efficient of these sequences is found, the ideal concentration
of formamide and NaCl and temperature for their hybridization can also be calculated
(99). With this tool, the characteristics of established and new probe sequences can be
rapidly and accurately compared and the time spent optimizing their use with FISH
in the laboratory can be reduced.
If FISH can be applied to a specimen in the absence of culturing, the time to result
after specimen collection is dramatically shortened and in situ data can be collected
(85). SA in urine was recently detected directly with a FISH assay by Wu et al. (33).
Conventional detection of pathogens in urine takes at least one day to be cultured and
then detected. FISH applied directly to urine can detect and identify the pathogens
present in two hours, thus informing their treatment the same day as specimen col-
lection. Other specimens tested successfully with FISH for SA without first culturing
have included cerebrospinal fluid (39), sputum (90), stool (89), and whole-blood with
in situ hybridization (ISH) (100, 63, 62). Unfortunately, FISH cannot be applied di-
rectly to whole-blood without either a series of complex purification and blocking steps
(100, 63, 62) or more commonly after completing a two day blood culture (32).
The turnaround time for a diagnostic test is important as it determines its usefulness
(101). A 45 minute FISH assay that successfully detected SA was reported by Poppert
et al. (32). This was a significant improvement as it was faster than the commonly used
two hour assay (64). A confirmatory test that takes longer than one hour is usually
12 Introduction
of a lesser value to the clinician (101). Most septicemia treatment decisions are made
at blood collection or after the report of a Gram-stain (66). At 45 minutes, the FISH
assay is more useful after a blood culture (32), but it may still be too lengthy to inform
treatment (23) because Gram-staining can be completed in 10 to 20 minutes (23).
The introduction and use of PNA based probes for FISH instead of DNA probes
has simplified and improved the assay (102). Multiple probes can be combined more
easily if PNA is used as it is not as sensitive as DNA probes to the stringency of the
buffer (102). No permeabilization is required for SA as PNA probes do not carry a
charge (103). For the same reason, the hybridization step is more efficient and can be
shortened (104) and the use of a flow-cytometer is less hampered by material in the
specimen (105, 34). With the use of PNA probes and the omission of permeabilization
and improvement to hybridization, it is possible to run a FISH assay in one step instead
of five (106).
Shrestha et al. (35) reported distinguishing MSSA from MRSA strains in approx-
imately three hours using PNA probes and a FISH assay visualized with a flow-
cytometer. Since FISH probes for SA cannot distinguish sub-stains (87), the deter-
mination of antibiotic susceptibility of SA with FISH was previously implied (107),
but not thought practical until this report (35). The FISH procedure used was indirect
(35); blood cultures were re-cultured in growth medium with or without antibiotics.
Differences in cell-counts and signal between the stains was then detected with a PNA
based FISH assay and a flow-cytometer (35). Unlike other tests for susceptibility which
take a day to complete (22), this study could determine susceptibility with FISH the
same day as the Gram-stain result was available (35).
The current high cost of PNA probes (Advandx, AC005) (50) and flow-cytometry
may deter its routine use. This could change with the lapse of the original patent
(108) and the development of inexpensive and easy-to-use desktop flow-cytometers
(BD Accuri, C6).
1.4 Improving the FISH for identification of S. aureus directly in bloodcultures 13
Table 1.2: FISH studies that have identified SA.
Specimensource/type
Specimen form‡ Culturing be-fore FISH
Reference
Blood culture Planktonic Yes (88, 37, 109, 103,104, 105, 110,111, 112, 113,50, 52, 114, 32,40, 68, 35)
Brain abscess Non-planktonic No (115)
Bone Non-planktonic No (116)
Cerebrospinal fluid Planktonic Yes (39)
Ear Non-planktonic No (117, 118, 119,120)
Heart valve Non-planktonic No (28)
Laboratory strains Planktonic Yes (107, 102)
Menses Planktonic No (121)
Milk Planktonic No (79, 80)
Nose Non-planktonic No (122, 123, 124,125, 126, 127,128, 129, 130)
Sputum Planktonic No (90)
Stool Planktonic No (89)
Throat Non-planktonic No (131, 132)
Tampon Non-planktonic No (121)
Urine Planktonic No (33)
Whole-blood Planktonic No ISH assay (100,63, 62)
Wound Non-planktonic No (19, 87, 133, 85,134, 135)
‡ Planktonic specimens contain free-floating pathogens in dilution. Non-planktonicspecimens contain pathogens adhered to its matrix or tissue.
14 Introduction
1.4.2 Limitations of FISH as applied to S. aureus
In spite of the new developments to the FISH assay, its use is not often reported in
routine microbiology. There could be a number of reasons for this. Most of the decisions
about the treatment of septicemia are made at the time of blood collection or after its
culturing (23). The FISH assay reported in blood culture studies cannot be applied
to whole-blood and so cannot be used at that time to indicate SA. The sensitivity of
the assay is limited to 103 to 104 cfu/ml (colony forming units) or more (39, 40) and
the blood from septic patients contains SA at no more than 10 cfu/ml and often only
1 cfu/ml or less (41). An ISH assay can be applied to whole-blood (100, 63, 62), but
its use is not widely reported as it is laborious and complex. The application of FISH
to positive blood cultures is also problematic. Blood cultures delay the start of FISH
by two days (60, 21) and remove most of the collectible in situ data (20). FISH can
identify SA in 45 minutes, but this may be too long after Gram-staining, which can be
completed in 10 to 20 minutes (23), for it to inform treatment (68). The delay to the
start of FISH and the time taken for its completion (21) are disadvantages that other
tests, performed after a blood culture to identify SA, share with FISH (22, 60).
Preparation of specimens and reagents
Material in the specimen can interfere with the FISH procedure and its signal. The
probe can bind non-specifically to the specimen or be unable to access SA (42, 43). The
signal from SA can be concealed by the specimen or be overwhelmed by its autofluo-
rescence (136, 47). Signal interference from debris in the blood cultures is usually not
an issue (18), but can be if FISH is applied to blood cultures that are accelerated (137)
or to specimens that are not cultured (121). There are several possible approaches to
avoid interference. Separation and purification of the specimen can increase its ratio of
SA to non-target material (42, 138, 43). The specimen can be pretreated with reagents
that block its non-specific binding to the probe (100, 76). Selective lysis of the spec-
imen can make SA more accessible to probes (19). The specimen can be illuminated
at longer wavelengths to reduce its autofluorescence (40).
1.4 Improving the FISH for identification of S. aureus directly in bloodcultures 15
These additional treatments, however complicate the FISH procedure, disrupt the
specimen matrix and, if overdone, can weaken and reduce the resolution of the signal
from SA (100)
Aspects of permeabilization of S. aureus
The use of a FISH assay with DNA-based probes applied to slides has drawbacks (139).
If it is not done correctly, preparation of its reagents and the procedure at each step
can lead to a poor signal from the probe (38). The formulation, storage of its reagents
and their correct application is not simple (44). Determining the correct concentration
involves the titration of reagents against reference strains of SA and testing with FISH
(32). The concentration of the reagent is optimal when SA produces the highest signal
and SE generates a weak or non-existent signal (140).
A poor signal from the FISH assay is often a result of inadequate fixation or per-
meabilization of SA. Insufficient permeablization of SA is possibly the most common
cause of a weak or non-detectable FISH signal and a false-negative result (103, 93).
The fixation step is important because its failure can cause the permeabilization step
that follows it to also fail. Over-fixed SA can be resistant to permeabilization, which
then reduces the access of the probe to SA, its binding and the signal of labeled SA. In
contrast, under-fixed SA can lyse when permeabilized and its cells and signal are lost
(39). Even if the fixation of SA is correct, the permeabilization of SA that follows can
still fail. As described, poorly permeabilized SA can result in no signal or loss of cells.
To avoid an incorrect result, reference stains of SA can be tested with FISH and the
assay adjusted if the signal is incorrect. This pretesting with FISH, however complicates
and delays its implementation (32). Once it is optimized, the fixation procedure is easily
repeated. This is not the case with the SA permeabilization reagents lysozyme (141)
and lysostaphin (95). When first prepared, these enzymes require titration and testing
with FISH against reference strains of SA to determine their correct concentration for
permeabilization. If these lytic enzymes are applied again after their long-term storage,
this testing is repeated.
16 Introduction
Duplex binding of DNA to RNA
The correct fixation and permeabilization of SA is a prerequisite for the successful de-
tection of SA with DNA-based FISH. Nonetheless, if the conditions for its hybridization
and washing are not ideal, the probe signal can also be weak or non-specific (142). If
the stringency of the hybridization and washing buffer is incorrect, probes can either
bind indiscriminately or not at all (140). Even if hybridization of SA is correct, the
washing step may be incorrect and fail (143). A further complication is that probe
sequences for SA differ in their capacity to differentiate SA from SE (Appendix B)
(52) and incorrect labeling of SE can be worsened by the conventional washing buffer
which relies on NaCl alone to adjust its stringency (142). Formamide is effective at
denaturing nucleic acids (144), but it is absent from the washing buffer as it is toxic,
difficult to dispose of and thus cannot be used in the larger volumes of washing buffer
used to remove the unbound probe (142).
Steps can be taken to improve the signal differentiation of SA from SE. The signal
can be amplified by tyramide signal amplification and multiple labeling with probes,
but this complicates the assay (145, 45). In silico calculations can be run to predict the
optimal formamide and NaCl concentrations for the probes and incubation conditions
(99). These calculations can reduce the time spent in the laboratory optimizing the
hybridization and washing reagents and the likelihood of their incorrect application
and a poor result (92). In silico calculations can also predict those probe sequences
with the greatest capacity to differentiate SA from SE (52) and can then optimize
the assay to this chosen probe sequence (92). As well, an extra non-toxic denaturing
reagent can be added to the washing buffer to improve its stringency control (144).
In summary, DNA based FISH is simple and rapid to carry out, but the preparation
of its reagents and their quality control complicates its implementation in routine
diagnostics (37, 40).
1.5 Improvements required for the application of FISH in thedetection of S. aureus 17
1.5 Improvements required for the application of
FISH in the detection of S. aureus
This project addressed some of the deficiencies of the FISH assay as a test for sep-
ticemia (146), by choosing SA as a target for its investigation. Apart from its clinical
importance in septicemia and other infections (55), SA is easily misidentified with
CoNS such as SE (19). The blood culture and Gram-stain tests indicate, but do not
identify SA with certainty (18) and so a test is needed to confirm its identity (44).
Furthermore, SA is peculiar in DNA-based FISH as it, unlike other Gram-positive bac-
teria, is resistant to the permeabilizing effect of lysozyme, but sensitive to the action
of lysostaphin (147). Thus, a DNA-based FISH assay developed for SA, with its per-
meabilization simplified or omitted, could be applied to other pathogens (32). There
were also practical reasons for selecting SA. The safe handling of clinical isolates of
SA at a non-clinical location was not onerous. It could be stored long-term (86) and,
when it was needed, quickly cultured for testing with FISH.
Firstly, the project investigated the conventional slide and DNA-based FISH assay
used to detect SA (Chapter 3). Established probe sequences for SA were tested. It
was not known if these probes for SA were optimal or if new, more efficient probes
could be identified (1). The conventional method for formulation of reagents was
reassessed. Preparation of these reagents for FISH was lengthy and it was hoped
that it could be shortened (2). It was not known if the conditions typically used
were optimal or merely followed convention (2). The standard incubation conditions
for permeabilization, hybridization and washing were optimized. These incremental
improvements were then used to further shorten the turnaround time of the FISH
assay. It was not known if shortening the FISH assay to less than 45 minutes (32)
would also compromise its signal and accuracy (3). Since the investigation focused
on basic aspects of FISH procedure, PNA and flow-cytometry were not tested in this
project.
18 Introduction
1.5.1 Re-engineering FISH for the detection of S. aureus
Next, the project investigated new approaches to the identification of SA with DNA-
based FISH (Chapter 4). Alternatives to the use of lysostaphin were tested (4). For
a DNA-based FISH assay that detects SA as well as other pathogens, three perme-
abilization treatments are normally applied (52): (i) lysostaphin and lysozyme for SA
(32), (ii) lysozyme for other Gram-positive bacteria and (iii) no treatment, apart from
fixation, for other pathogen types (37). If an alternative to lysostaphin were found,
the FISH procedure would be simpler to carry out and its costs possibly halved. An
alternative could also be to simplify the preparation for FISH as the initial preparation
of lysostaphin is exacting and once diluted, its activity needs to be monitored as it
declines with time (95).
Alternatives to the formamide-based reagents, incubators and water-baths com-
monly used with FISH were tested. Functionally the hybridization and washing buffers
are similar (142) as both are used to denature nucleic acid. The use of formamide (142),
however is restricted to the hybridization buffer as it is toxic (144) and large volumes
are used in washing (40). As a result, the washing buffer may not be as efficient
at removing unbound probe. The denaturing efficiency of FISH might be increased
and assay preparation simplified if a non-toxic alternative to formamide (142) were
found which could be used in all incubations (144). With more robust FISH buffers,
it might become practical to carry out the assay without an incubator or water-bath.
This equipment is usually purchased specifically for FISH and can take up bench-space
which might otherwise be better used.
1.5.2 Issues concerning the use of FISH for the detection of
S. aureus in complex samples
Lastly, the project investigated solutions to the management of interference of the
FISH procedure and signal from material in the specimen. Blood cultures do not
usually suffer this interference as the proportion of debris is low (32). Specimens that
are directly tested (116) or rapidly cultured (137), however have a higher proportion of
1.5 Improvements required for the application of FISH in thedetection of S. aureus 19
background material or debris. This can then block access of the FISH probe to SA, can
hide the SA and can autofluoresce and overwhelm the FISH signal (44, 121, 39, 125).
Two techniques for reducing interference were investigated: the purification of the
specimen (138) and the time-gating of its autofluorescence (46, 47). An example of
time-gating is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Giardia lamblia cells were labeled with a
europium long-lifetime probe (136) using an immunofluorescence technique and then
visualized by time-gating the signal (148).
20 Introduction
(a) Ungated fluorescence image
(b) Time-gated luminescence image
Figure 1.1: (a) Micrographs of pond water containing flocculation. Giardia lambliacysts were immunofluorescently labeled with a europium chelate and then inoculatedin the water and illuminated at 365 nm; they fluoresce a bright red. (b) The sameview of the specimen with the UV emission time-resolved with a time-gated auto-synchronous luminescence detector (GALD). Micrographs included with permissionfrom Russell Connally (148).
1.5 Improvements required for the application of FISH in thedetection of S. aureus 21
Sample purification and preparation technique
The aim of reducing specimen interference deserves more comment. As a first approach,
and before testing with an ISH assay, the project investigated purifying whole-blood
spiked with SA (138). Purification increases the ratio of SA to non-target material
(138). By removing non-target material, probe access is improved and autofluores-
cence reduced (42, 138, 43). Purification has its own disadvantages; it disrupts the
specimen, alters in situ data and can lengthen the time taken for the preparation of
the FISH procedure (138). Of possibly greater concern is the potential purification has
for removing SA with other material (42, 43). Separation and removal of non-target
material from SA is only of use if it can be done accurately, rapidly and simply.
Reduction of autofluorescence in fluorescence microscopy
As a second approach, the autofluorescence signal was blocked or time-gated (referred
to as time-resolved) so that it did not interfere with observation of the FISH signal
(47). Time-gating the signal lessens the need to apply other treatments for autofluo-
rescence such as purifying the specimen or illuminating it at longer-wavelengths (136).
These treatments can remove SA or reduce its resolution when viewed with a micro-
scope. Time gating illuminates the specimen with short (800 µs) pulses, blocks its
first emission, but captures emissions that follow after a predefined gating period (Fig-
ure 1.2) (148). This time gated luminescence microscopy (TGLM) technique relies on
probes with long lifetime emission. After the excitation pulse ends the initial short life-
time autofluorescence (and conventional fluorophore), emission (tens of nanoseconds)
is blocked until its decays (47). The emission from the luminophore probe that lasts
longer (10 to 100s of microseconds), is observed free of autofluorescence (47).
The detection of pathogens by time-gating cells labeled with luminophore probes
using an in situ hybridization (ISH) assay is not often reported. The equipment needed
is specialized (136) and its signal can be weak (149, 150). Its occasional use can be
attributed to the probes (referred to as chelates) used, which have relatively poor
stability and solubility (151). To overcome the limitations of the chelates, changes were
22 Introduction
made to the ISH assay that complicated and lengthened it. These included blocking
steps, overnight incubations and signal amplification with streptavidin conjugates (149)
or tyramides (150). This rendered the time-gated ISH assay unsuitable for most routine
diagnostics (45). Immunofluorescence might be well suited as its labeling is exterior to
the cell (136), but as discussed, its use with SA is limited (83).
As a possible remedy, a new europium chelate (BHTEGS), which had properties that
were more desirable than those of earlier chelates (151), was developed by a research
group at Macquarie University (personal communication with Russell Connally). This
chelate was stable and soluble enough that it could be conjugated directly to DNA
(KT18 5’- GCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTT -3’) so that SA could be labeled with a rapid
assay based on FISH. The labeled SA was then time-gated with a newly developed
GALD device (148). This is the first report on the application of the chelate, the LISH
assay and GALD to the detection of SA.
1.5 Improvements required for the application of FISH in thedetection of S. aureus 23
Figure 1.2: The time-resolved technique uses the difference in the emission lifetime ofa europium chelate (BHTEGS) and the autofluorescence of the specimen. The schemaof TGLM shows time on the X-axis and the intensity of the luminescence from thepathogen is on the Y-axis. The specimen is illuminated with pulses, but the captureof its emission is delayed (referred to as gated) until the short-lived autofluorescencehas decayed. The luminescence from the europium chelate is then collected withoutthis background signal. Illustration is included with permission from Russell Connally(148).
24 Introduction
1.6 Outline of the thesis
The Chapters in the thesis address, in order, the aims of the project. Chapter 2
describes the broad aspects of the methodology used in this project, structured around
the five steps of the whole-cell prokaryote FISH assay (30). Chapter 3 reports on
improvements to the FISH assay commonly used to detect SA in blood cultures (32):
1. Established and new probe sequences for the identification of SA with FISH were
assessed. This was published in a peer reviewed journal and included as such:
Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. In silico evaluation and testing
of fluorescence in situ hybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus.
Lab Med 2011;42:587-591 (1).
2. The preparation and storage of reagents for FISH was shortened. A FISH tech-
nique that used probes of large molecular-weight was optimized for the detection
of SA. This was published in a peer reviewed journal and included as such: Law-
son TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Optimization of a two-step per-
meabilization fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for the detection of
Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:359-365 (2)
3. The FISH procedure for the identification of SA was shortened so that it could
be completed in half an hour. This was published in a peer reviewed journal
and included as such: Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Express
fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for the detection of Staphylococcus
aureus. Clin lab 2011;57:789-794 (3).
Chapter 4 reports on the re-engineering of the FISH assay for the identification of SA:
1. A novel FISH technique free of the SA permeabilizing reagent lysostaphin was
developed for the detection of SA. This was published in a peer reviewed journal
and included as such: Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, Vemulpad S, Piper
JA. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situ hybridization
that does not require lysostaphin. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:142-147 (4).
1.6 Outline of the thesis 25
2. A novel FISH technique free of formamide, an incubator and a water-bath was
developed for the detection of SA. This was published in a peer reviewed jour-
nal and included as such: Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl fluorescence in
situ hybridization (FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus. Lett Appl Microbiol
2012;10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03197.x:(in press) (5).
Chapter 5 reports on an investigation into the reduction of specimen autofluorescence
which can overwhelm a FISH signal (47). Techniques were tested for removal of non-
target material from the specimen. A new europium chelate BHTEGS was trialled.
The probe made it possible to apply a rapid in situ hybridization assay similar to
FISH and which could rapidly detect SA in complex blood specimens which exhibited
autofluorescence.
Chapter 6 summaries the findings of the project and draws conclusions from its results.
Appendix A includes the following two publications that also emerged from the thesis
(6, 7):
1. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. In reference to targeted imag-
ing modality selection for bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis and different
biofilms, different disease? a clinical outcomes study. Laryngoscope 2011;121:2043-
2044 (6).
2. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, Piper JA. The simultaneous detection and
differentiation of staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in
situ hybridization: A comment. Med Princ Pract 2011;20:390-391 (7).
These letters provide commentaries on contemporary SA FISH studies, in light of the
findings of this thesis.
Appendix B provides technical details on the binding affinity of established and new
oligonucleotides specific for SA (98).
26 Introduction
2Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted
oligonucleotide probes
The fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method, used by this project to identify
S. aureus (SA), is described in this Chapter. This method labels 16S rRNA in whole
prokaryote cells such as SA with DNA probes conjugated to fluorophores (38). DNA
probes are less efficient at crossing the cell-wall and accessing their targets than peptide
nucleic acid (PNA) based probes (102), but are better suited to routine work as they
are far less expensive. The FISH method labels RNA; as this type of nucleic acid
exists in high numbers within prokaryote cells and it can thus produce a signal of
high intensity (140). A sub-type of rRNA, 16S rRNA is usually the target of most
established FISH probes for SA (44) since knowledge of its prokaryote sequences is
relatively comprehensive (88, 64) and accurate (84).
The identification and differentiation of SA from Staphylococcus epidermidis (SE)
with FISH is the focus of this project. The labeling of SA with FISH is not as straight-
forward as the labeling of other pathogens such as Escherichia coli (EC). SA requires
permeabilization with lysozyme and lysostaphin for DNA probes to cross the cell-wall
(147, 52). The 16S rRNA sequence for SA is almost identical to that for SE (1). SE
is a frequent contaminant of blood-cultures and its appearance in Gram-stains can
27
28 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
be indistinguishable from SA (48). In contrast, E. coli requires simple fixation with
alcohol and no permeabilization before it can be labeled with FISH and its 16S rRNA
sequence is dissimilar to other common pathogens (52).
SA was chosen as a target in part because its labeling with DNA probes and FISH is
more complex than other pathogens (52). SE was chosen to act as a negative control as
its appearance is similar to SA and its 16S rRNA is almost identical. If simplified, the
methods developed for SA could be applied to other less demanding pathogens. The
reverse scenario is less likely to be true. A single pathogen and not multiple pathogens
was also chosen as it permitted a greater focus on the methodology of FISH. As the
extra complexity associated with targeting more than one type of pathogen was avoided
(32), a greater number of experimental iterations could be tested each day.
A recent report by Poppert et al. (32), which developed a new FISH assay for SA
(referred to as accelerated), was taken as the starting point for this project. This accel-
erated method was chosen as it had a 45 minute turnaround time, the fastest reported
for the detection of SA and used DNA probes to test blood-cultures, the most common
specimen type tested for SA (32). Apart from its turnaround time, other aspects of
this FISH method were conventional. This is illustrated in Table 2.1 which lists the
accelerated method (32) and another method (referred to as comprehensive) recently
used by Gescher et al. (64). Although the accelerated method (32) is over two times
shorter than the comprehensive method (64), both methods share the same compo-
nents of the FISH assay. They both have five steps (or six if microscopy is included):
(i) specimen preparation, (ii) fixation, (iii) permeabilization, (iv) hybridization and (v)
washing. Both used slides for testing blood-cultures with DNA probes targeting 16S
rRNA and were visualized with an epifluorescent microscope to find SA.
The accelerated FISH method (32) was not only used as a starting-point for the
project, but also as a control throughout the project. If a new and enhanced FISH
method was developed, it was not considered a practical improvement unless it demon-
strated the same accuracy and signal intensity as the accelerated method (32).
The FISH methods developed and tested in this project applied, like the two meth-
ods listed in Table 2.1, DNA probes to SA affixed to slides and were visualized with
29
an epifluorescent microscope. This differs from other FISH studies that have used con-
focal microscopes (36) or flow-cytometer (105, 34) for the visualization of the probes.
Confocal microscopy (36) has a high sensitivity and can be useful in tissues that have
thickness. Flow-cytometer also has a high sensitivity, can collect quantitative data and
be automated (105). They both can be costly and complex to carry out, however and
were not thought necessary for an investigation of core aspects of the FISH procedure.
It should be noted that the prokaryote FISH method tested by the project differs
from FISH reported elsewhere that targets eukaryote chromosomes and their abnor-
malities (152).
30 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
Table 2.1: A comparison of the FISH methods described by Poppert et al. (32) andGescher et al. (64) for the detection of SA.
Accelerated FISH (32) Comprehensive FISH (64)
Preparation: Blood culture iso-lates were diluted with PBS (1 min),spotted to slides (1 min), air-dried (5min), fixed with methanol (10 min)and air-dried (1 min).
Preparation: Blood culture iso-lates were fixed with ethanol (1min), spotted onto slides (1 min)and air-dried (5 min).
Permeabilization: Slides werespotted (1 min) with lysis reagent(2 mg/ml lysozyme, 100 µg/mllysostaphin (147, 52), 10 mM Tris-HCl at pH 8.0) and incubated at 46◦C (5 min), washed with methanol(3 min) and air-dried (1 min).
Permeabilization: Slides werespotted with 1 mg/ml lysozyme (1min) and incubated at 30 ◦C (10min). Lysozyme was removed (1min), slides were spotted with 1mg/ml lysostaphin and incubated at30 ◦C (5 min) (32). Slides werewashed with filtered (Milli-Q, MQ)water (1 min) and air-dried (5 min).
Hybridization: Slides were spot-ted with hybridization buffer (30%formamide, 0.9 M NaCl, 10 mMTris-HCl at pH 8.0, 0.01% SDS, 25ng/ml probe and MQ water) (1 min)and incubated at 46 ◦C (10 min).
Hybridization: Hybridizationbuffer (40% formamide, 0.9 MNaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl at pH 7.3,0.01% SDS, 10 pM of probe andMQ water) was spotted to slides (1min) and incubated at 49 ◦C (90min).
Washing/Mounting: Slides wereincubated with washing buffer(0.112 M NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl pH8.0, 0.01% SDS, 5 mM EDTA andMQ water) at 48 ◦C (5 min) andair-dried (1 min)
Washing/Mounting: Slides werewashed with water (1 min) andmounting media added with DAPI(1 min).
Total time: 45 minutes. Total time: 127 minutes.
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples 31
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus
samples
To save time, the hybridization buffer and washing buffer were prepared in advance
(2). Hybridization buffer (0.9 M NaCl (153), 20 mM Tris-HCl, 0.01% (w/v) SDS,
and 1 µg/ml DAPI) with no formamide or with 60% (v/v) deionized formamide were
prepared and stored for up to a year at -20 ◦C in 5 ml sterile plastic screw-top tubes
(2). The hybridization buffer contained DAPI. Many FISH studies counter-stain the
cells with a general DNA intercalating fluorescent dye such as DAPI (94, 36, 34) or
Hoechst (85) as a control for visualizing target and non-target pathogens and for cell
counting (85). When needed, the buffers were thawed and mixed to the desired target
formamide concentration (2).
2.1.1 Hybridization and post-hybridization washing buffer prepa-
ration
NaCl (Sigma, S619) was prepared at a 5 M concentration as stock solution in Milli-
Q (MQ) water (Millipore), sterilized with a 2 µm syringe-filter and stored at room
temperature. NaCl was diluted to 0.9 M (153) and used in the FISH buffers to increase
the stability of nucleic acid duplexes (142). Hydrochloric acid (HCl) (Sigma, H1758)
and Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (Sigma, S8045) were used to adjust the pH of the
buffers and other reagents such as Tris-HCl. Most buffering with Tris-HCl was in the
physiological range of pH 7.0 to 8.0 and at concentrations of 10 to 100 mM (87). Tris-
HCl was prepared with Trizma hydrochloride (Sigma, T3253), MQ water and Trizma
base (Sigma, T1503) and HCl was used to adjust the pH. It was sterilized with a 2 µm
syringe filter before use.
Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (Sigma, L4390) was used at low concentrations (0.01
to 0.02% v/v) in hybridization and washing buffers as a surfactant and as a mild
permeabilizing agent (87). SDS was added to MQ water and the solution was mixed
and heated to 68 ◦C until the SDS dissolved. SDS was not autoclaved, but instead was
32 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
sterilized with a 2 µm syringe filter.
Formamide and in situ hybridization
Formamide was used to destabilize nucleic acid duplexes in the hybridization buffer
(87). The buffer’s stringency was adjusted with the formamide against a fixed 0.9 M
concentration of NaCl (153, 142). No preparation of the formamide was necessary if
it was already deionized (Applichem, A2156) and fresh (colorless). Fresh deionized
formamide was aliquoted and stored at -20 ◦C for up to one year before use.
If de-ionization of the formamide was needed, wet mixed bed ion exchange resin 5%
(w/v) (Sigma, Amberlite c© MB-1 hydrogen and hydroxide form, 501999) was added,
removed with a coffee filter and the formamide supernatant stored as described above.
Urea (153) was also used as an alternative denaturing agent for formamide (142) be-
cause formamide is toxic and difficult to dispose of (144). Stock solution of urea (Sigma,
U6504) was prepared at 80 M and filtered before use.
The ideal formamide concentration to use with a probe was predicted with in silico
calculation and confirmed by testing with FISH (92). The melting temperature of an
oligonucleotide probe binding to SA was calculated with the formula 81.5 + 16.6(log
M [Na+]) + 0.41(%G+C) - 0.72(% formamide) or with a corresponding and easier to
use online algorithm such as mathFISH (mathfish.cee.wisc.edu) (92) (Figure 2.1). G
and C are the number of Guanine and Cytosine bases in the sequence. The melting
temperature of a probe is when 50% of its sequence is annealed to its target (84).
If the incubation temperature and NaCl concentration is kept constant, the melting
temperature of a buffer can be adjusted with formamide. As the formamide is increased
so that the melting temperature of the nucleic acid is lower, the stringency of the buffer
also increases and the likelihood of mismatched DNA:RNA binding decreases.
To confirm the ideal formamide concentration for a probe, the hybridization buffer
was prepared with formamide at 15% (v/v) increments from zero to 60%. A FISH
assay was then applied, that used these different concentrations, to reference strains
of SA affixed to slides. The concentration with the highest signal intensity from the
FISH probe was chosen. Most probes can maintain a signal over two increments of
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples 33
formamide (140). If two of these formamide concentrations were optimal, the higher
concentration was chosen as it is less likely to produce a non-specific signal.
For most of the probes tested in the project, formamide at 30% (v/v) produced
an adequate signal and was prepared by mixing the 60% prepared buffer at 1:8 with
the buffer that contained no formamide. This is about 5% higher than the lowest
formamide concentration for the probes calculated with mathFISH (92) in Figure 2.1.
The calculations assumed 47 ◦C incubation, 0.9 M NaCl (153) and 1 µM of probe in
the buffer. The oligonucleotide could be added to this buffer mix and stored at 4 ◦C
in 1.5 ml sterile plastic aliquots for a week before the FISH assay was run.
Figure 2.1: The hybridization efficiency of EUB338, KT18-16S68, Staaur or Staphyprobes to SA by the amount of formamide in the buffer. [FA]m is the melting formamideconcentration for the DNA:RNA duplex (92).
Buffer type in the washing media
In an approach similar to the preparation for the hybridization buffer, washing buffer
without salt (20 mM Tris-HCl, 5 mM EDTA and 0.01% (w/v) SDS) and with 1.8 M
NaCl was prepared and stored for up to a year at 4 ◦C in one liter bottles (Schott,
34 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
GL45) (2). When needed, these buffers were mixed to their target NaCl concentration
in a 50 ml tube and preheated in a water-bath to 47 ◦C.
The concentration of NaCl used in the washing buffer was a function of the concen-
tration of formamide used in the hybridization buffer (Table 2.2) (143). The formamide
concentration was determined, as noted before, by the probe and target pathogen se-
quence used (Figure 2.1) (92). The NaCl concentration was confirmed by testing with
FISH in the laboratory at 0.014, 0.04, 0.112, 0.318 and 0.9 M NaCl concentrations
(143). The NaCl concentration was optimal when the ratio of SA signal to SE signal
was at its highest (140).
Low concentrations of ions can affect the stringency of the buffer. To counter-act
this, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (Sigma, EDS) was used as a chelate in
the washing buffers when the NaCl concentration was lower than 0.225 M (102). It
was also used as a chelate in washing buffers that contained sodium citrate buffer
(SSC) (116). In addition, it was added to the TE buffer (TE is 10 mM Tris-HCl
and 1 mM EDTA) to protect stock solutions of fluorescent probes and to blood as an
anticoagulant. Stock solution of EDTA was prepared at 0.5 M, sterilized with a 0.2
µm syringe filter and stored at room-temperature before use.
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples 35
Table 2.2: NaCl (M) in the washing buffer as a function of formamide (%) in thehybridization buffer (142, 143).
Formamide(%)‡ NaCl (M)
0 0.900
5 0.636
10 0.450
15 0.318
20 0.2250
25 0.159
30 0.112
35 0.080
40 0.056
45 0.040
50 0.028
55 0.020
60 0.014
65 -
70 -
‡ The percentage of formamide is depended upon the particular probe(s) sequence tobe hybridized as indicated in Figure 2.1.
36 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
2.1.2 In Silico Evaluation and Testing of FISH 16S rRNA
Probes for S. aureus
FISH oligonucleotide probes that are unique to SA were identified and then assessed.
Only 16S rRNA targets was considered. Its sequences for most pathogens are well docu-
mented, but there were no established probes that targeted the 18S or 23S rRNA of SA
(84). To identify unique SA sequences, SA and other non-target pathogen 16S rRNA se-
quences were collected from the NCBI-Nucleotide database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore)
(97).
Pathogens that had a similar 16S sequence to SA were identified (rdp.cme.msu.edu)
(154). When aligned with the online tool NCBI-Blast (blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), SE had
an almost identical 16S rRNA sequence to SA (97). SE is a benign microbe often
found in blood-cultures as a contaminant and often misidentified as SA. The near
perfect alignment of SA to SE meant that any mismatches identified between the two
would probably be unique to SA and that their number would be small.
For this project, a typical sequence for SA (GenBank: CP000253.1) and one for SE
(GenBank: AF397060.1) were aligned and mismatches were identified at 69 to 89, 183
to 198, 452 to 477 and 999 to 1024 positions relative to E. coli 16S rRNA (97, 155).
The uniqueness of the identified mismatched sequences to SA was then confirmed by
reapplying it to other pathogen sequences (microbial-ecology.net/probecheck). The se-
quence 999 to 1024 was not unique to SA and so was not considered further. SA shared
this sequence with Staphylococcus haemolyticus which is also occasionally detected in
blood-cultures (65).
Quantitative assessment of oligonucleotides for S. aureus
To assess the usefulness of an oligonucleotide, the ∆Gooverall (DeltaGo) and the hy-
bridization efficiency of its sequence were calculated (92). DeltaGo indicates the prob-
ability of a probe to target binding (DNA:RNA) given the competing interactions of
probe (DNA:DNA) and target (RNA:RNA) self-binding (156). The higher the negative
number, the higher the binding potential of the probe to their targets. Hybridization
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples 37
efficiency indicates the predicted ratio of target molecules bound with probe to all the
target molecules. A hybridization efficiency of one is equal to saturation binding and
zero to no binding.
Several criteria can be used to judge the affinity of a particular oligonucleotide to SA
(Table 2.3). A DeltaGo between -17 and -13 kcal/mol for SA, a difference in DeltaGo
between SA and SE greater than 3 kcal/mol, a difference in formamide concentration
of 20% (v/v) and hybridization efficiency greater than 0.8 indicates a highly sensitive
sequence. A DeltaGo greater than -13 kcal/mol and less than -10 kcal/mol to SE and
a hybridization efficiency greater than 0.8 indicates a highly specific sequence (92).
38 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
Table 2.3: A guide to judging the performance of a probe sequence to SA and SE.
Thermodynamic descriptor†Sensitivity∗ Specitivity£
Low≺ High≺ Low≺ High≺
∆G target§ (kcal/mol) < -17` -17 to -13 > -10 NA
∆G non-target§ (kcal/mol) < -13 NA NA > -10
∆G difference∼ (kcal/mol) < 3 > 3 NA NA
FA difference‡ (%) < 20 > 20 NA NA
HE target∝ (ratio) NA > 0.9 < 0.9 NA
HE non-target∝ (ratio) > 0.1 NA NA < 0.1
HE difference¶ (ratio) < 0.9 > 0.9 < 0.9 > 0.9
† Thermodynamic calculations assume a single DNA probe binding to a target 16SrRNA sequence (92).∗ Sensitivity = TP/(TP+FP), where TP= true positive and FP = false positive.£ Specificity = TN/(TN+FN), where TN = true negative and FN = false negative.≺ Low and high sensitivity and specificity cutoffs were based on Yilmaz et al. (92)§ Overall Gibbs binding potential of probe (DeltaGo kcal/mol) (156).` The DeltaGo indicates the standard state overall Gibbs free energy of the probe-target hybrid: the probability of probe to target binding (DNA:RNA) given thecompeting interactions of probe (DNA:DNA) and target (RNA:RNA) self-binding.The higher the negative number, the greater the probe-target binding affinity (156).^ NA: not applicable.∼ ∆G difference = DeltaGo target - DeltaGo non-target (96).‡ Melting formamide concentration (FA %) for the probe-target duplex (99).∝ Hybridization efficiency (HE) indicated the predicted ratio of target moleculesbound with probe to all target molecules. A hybridization efficiency of 1 indicatedsaturation and 0 no hybridization (98).¶ HE difference = HE target - HE non-target (92).
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples 39
The sequences 183 to 193 and 452 to 477 were judged to have a low hybridization
efficiency (98). The 69 to 89 was analyzed in more detail with probes of 18, 19, 22, and
25 bases long (Figure 2.2). A pattern emerged where the 5’ end of a potential probe
was most efficient at the 65 to 67 positions. Probes from 15 to 30 bases were tested at
this location using the mismatch feature of mathFISH (96), and a number of potential
probe candidates were realized including all the established probes already reported
for SA. These calculations assumed 47 ◦C incubation, 0.9 M NaCl (153) and 1 µM of
probe in the buffer.
Figure 2.2: The 5’ end binding affinity (∆Gooverall) of 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25 bases long
oligonucleotides to the 54 to 73 SA 16S rRNA sequence.
40 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
2.1.3 In situ probing of S. aureus with specific 16S rRNA
targeted oligonucleotides
The sequences that were identified as highly specific to SA were then tested as fluores-
cent probes with FISH. This included two probes KT18 (16S68: 5’- GCAAGCTTCTCGTC-
CGTT -3’) (1) and STAAUR (16S69: 5’- GAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG -3’) (87)
specific for SA and STAPHY (16S697 5’-TCCTCCATATCTCTGCGC-3’) (87) specific
for Staphylococcus. EUB338 (16S337: 5’- GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT -3’) (157)
specific for eubacteria was used as a positive control. More detailed information on
the alignment and binding affinity of these sequences to SA and SE is provided in
Appendix B.
The oligonucleotides were either directly conjugated to fluorophores (157) or bi-
otinylated (100) at the 5’ end. The fluorophores that were used were Dylight R© 488
(Jackson), Alexa Fluor R© 488 or 555 (Invitrogen) and FITC or Cy3 (Genworks) (2).
For the time-gated luminescence microscopy (TGLM) visualization of the europium
(Eu3+) BHTEGS chelate (developed by a Macquarie University research group), a
member of this research team (Russell Connally) conjugated the new Eu3+ chelate
BHTEGS to the sequence KT18 (1).
Oligonucleotide resuspension, and storage
DNA oligonucleotides were supplied (Invitrogen or Geneworks) and stored dry for up
to a year at 4 ◦C. To use, these probes (as well as salmon sperm DNA) were diluted
in TE buffer at 100 µM, aliquoted out at 100 µl each to reduce freeze-thaw cycles and
stored for up to a year at -20 ◦C. Before use, an aliquot of the probe stock was thawed
and stored at 4 ◦C. To use, the probes were diluted 1:100 in the final hybridization
buffer mix to make 1 µM and stored at 4 ◦C and applied within a week.
Oligonucleotide probes used in FISH to detect SA can be synthesized from ribonu-
cleic acid (RNA), deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or peptide nucleic acid (PNA) (102).
RNA is rarely used as it can be easily degraded by the ubiquitous RNase. The use
of PNA (Advandx, AC005) based probes is often reported (109, 105) as they do not
2.1 Preparation of reagents, probes and S. aureus samples 41
possess a charge and so do not need to SA to be permeabilized for hybridization and
can bind rapidly to their targets with a high affinity (102). As they are low in cost, the
use of DNA based probes is also often reported (87, 32) and were used in this project,
but do need SA to be permeabilized for hybridization before they can be applied.
2.1.4 Bacterial isolates
So that isolates could be tested at a non-clinical location, clinical patient isolates of
SA, SE and E. coli were collected at a major hospital (Westmead Hospital, Sydney)
on agar plates. To control for potential differences between strains, 10 isolates of each
type of bacteria were randomly collected. Initial testing observed no difference in
the FISH signal between methicillin-susceptible SA (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant
SA (MRSA). To lower risk, only non antibiotic resistant strains were tested further.
Isolate identity was confirmed with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (158) and then
de-identified for testing.
To compare FISH procedures, collected isolates were re-cultured in 50 ml tubes until
turbid, aliquoted, centrifuged for three minutes at 3000 rcf, supernatant removed,
frozen and stored long-term (86). Before its use, the nutrient broth was sterilized
with a 2 µm syringe filter. Before testing with FISH, isolates were thawed and re-
cultured, usually for 70 minutes, in the nutrient broth until turbid (0.5 McFarland).
No difference in the signals were observed if the isolates were tested by FISH directly
from the collected agar plates.
2.1.5 Separation of S. aureus from an in vitro model of bac-
teraemia
For the TGLM detection of SA in whole-blood, cultures of SA were washed and diluted
in saline to an optical density of 1.0 at 600 nm (159). NaCl at 0.9 % (v/v) was used
to dilute SA so that when the diluted SA was added, the tonicity of the blood would
be maintained. Venous blood was collected from a healthy volunteer in EDTA tubes
(Becton Dickinson, 367863). A simple in vitro bacteraemia model was created by
42 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
spiking fresh whole-blood with SA and incubating (160). For 1 ml of blood, 10 µl of
the SA in saline was added (1.0 optical density at 600 nm) and the blood incubated
with gentle agitation at 37 ◦C for one hour.
To simplify the procedure, the incubated blood was lysed with alkaline water which
released intra-cellular SA (138). The SA could then be detected with FISH. This differs
from the approach taken elsewhere that separated blood components with Dextran
500 and labeled intra-cellular SA in the leukocytes with an in situ hybridization (ISH)
assay (100). Lysing the blood allowed the ratio of SA to blood cells to be increased,
simplified and shortened the assay and reduced non-specific labeling of the FISH probe
to leukocytes and other blood debris (data not shown). The alkaline water was prepared
by adding 4 mM NaOH to Milli-Q (MQ) water at pH 10.0 (138). Blood and alkaline
water were then mixed at a ratio of 1:10 (to make a pH of 8.5) by vortexing and then
centrifuged at 3,000 rcf. The supernatant was removed and the treatment repeated
before spotting and fixing the pellet to slides for the FISH procedure.
2.2 Step 1: Method for adhering specimens to slides
SA adhesion to slides can be poor if it is air-dried (40). The adhesion of SA to the
slides can be increased by heat fixing the specimen to slides pretreated with agarose
and then, after the SA is spotted and dried, fixing with alcohol (139). The number
of SA that remain adhered to the slide as well as the effectiveness of permeabilization
can then be quickly determined with fluorescent DAPI (Sigma, D9564) stain excited
with UV light.
To prepare the slide, an agarose (Bio-Rad, 162-0102) bed was applied to diagnostic
glass slides (Menzel-Glaser, X1XER308B). The bed was prepared by adding 0.02%
(w/v) agarose with 0.01% (w/v) sodium azide (Sigma, S2002) to Milli-Q water R© (MQ)
(Millipore) and dissolving it in water by heating in a microwave oven without boiling
(139). This diluted agarose was spotted (10 µl) to each slide well and dried on a 60 ◦C
hotplate.
If cell loss persisted, the broth culture of the isolates could also be diluted 1:1 in
2.3 Step 2: S. aureus fixation 43
prewarmed 0.4% (w/v) agarose (139). The agarose-isolate dilute was then spotted
(10 µl) to slides not treated with agarose and fixed with a 60 ◦C hotplate until dry.
For specimens that were heat-fixed to plain glass slides, rinsing these slides in 1 M
urea was more effective than agarose at reducing cell loss (data not shown). As a
further improvement to the use of slides with FISH, the specimen or reagent run-off
was contained by marking the slides with a wax-pencil (Staedtler R©, Chinagraph).
2.3 Step 2: S. aureus fixation
Fixation was necessary to inactivate the pathogens, avoid cell lysis in Gram-negative
bacteria such as EC and to improve the consistency of permeabilization and hybridiza-
tion of the FISH probes. To fix as well as partly permeabilize pathogens, slides with
were washed in 50 ml sterile tubes with either absolute methanol or ethanol for three
minutes (32). Slides were removed and dried on a 60 ◦C hot-plate.
For more rapid fixation, slides of SA were spotted with alcohol, left on the bench
for one minute and then dried on the hot-plate. Fixation with methanol produced a
more consistent FISH signal, but was toxic to use. Fixation with ethanol was less toxic
and produced a higher, but also a less consistent FISH signal.
2.4 Step 3: S. aureus permeabilization
Gram-negative bacteria were fixed with alcohol and did not need permeabilization.
Permeabilization with enzymes was necessary for DNA probes to reach in situ targets
in Gram-positive pathogens such as SA. Most Gram-positive bacteria lysed rapidly
with lysozyme. SA permeabilizes slowly with lysozyme, but quickly with lysostaphin
(147). To cut preparation time, stock solutions of 30 µg/ml lysozyme (Sigma, L6876)
and 2 µg/ml lysostaphin (Sigma, L4402) (32) were prepared and stored in 1.5 ml sterile
aliquots. These solutions were frozen and stored long-term at -20 ◦C. Unless frozen,
the enzymes gradually lost their permeabilizing activity.
For use, the solutions were thawed, diluted 1:1 with MQ water and 40 µM Tris-HCl
44 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
for buffering and used within a week. Lysozyme was most active at pH 7.0 and at 37
◦C in the absence of NaCl (141). Lysostaphin was most active at pH 8.0 and at 47 ◦C
in the absence of formamide (95). To permeabilize in a single step, 2 mg/ml lysozyme
and 0.1 mg/ml lysostaphin (147) at pH 7.0 was spotted to the slides and incubated at
47 ◦C for five minutes in 50 ml tubes (Greiner, 210-261) (2) before rinsing the slides in
absolute methanol (32).
To permeabilize SA in two steps, 10 µl of lysozyme at 15 mg/ml in MQ water
(147, 4), was spotted onto the slide wells and incubated in 50 ml tubes (Greiner, 210-
261) for six minutes at 38 ◦C (141). The lysozyme was rinsed off with PBS (Sigma,
P4417) and the slides were rapidly dried with pressurized air (32) or by centrifuging in
50 ml tubes for one minute at 100 rcf. The order of their application mattered; lysozyme
followed by lysostaphin permeabilization was more effective than in the reverse order
(52). Permeabilization was stopped by rinsing the slides again in absolute methanol.
Permeabilization that does not require lysostaphin
To permeabilize without lysostaphin, 10 µl of freshly prepared 15 mg/ml lysozyme in
unbuffered MQ water (147) was spotted to the slides and incubated in 50 ml tubes at
47◦C for 30 minutes before rinsing the slides in absolute methanol (4). If permeabi-
lization was performed on a 47 ◦C hot-plate, the treatment was the same except that
the slides were covered with a clear plastic lid and the incubation was extended to 40
minutes (5). The hot-plate was developed by one of the authors (Russell Connally)
and had an accuracy of ± 0.5 ◦C at 47 ◦C. If the permeabilization was applied to SA
separated from blood, incubation was extended to one hour.
After its permeabilization and before its hybridization, the SA rRNA can be de-
graded by endogenous RNase. To reduce loss from RNase, the equipment and most
of the reagents can be treated with RNase-Zap (Ambion, AM9780), 0.1% diethylpy-
rocarbonate (DEPC) (Aldrich, 159220) or autoclaved. However, in this project, no
difference was observed in the FISH signal with or without this treatment if clean
laboratory standards were maintained, pre-sterilized polypropylene plastic disposables
and MQ water were used and gloves were regularly changed.
2.5 Step 4: In situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted, fluorescentlylabeled oligonucleotides 45
2.5 Step 4: In situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted,
fluorescently labeled oligonucleotides
Incubation in hybridization buffer binds oligonucleotides to their complementary se-
quences. Incubation in the washing buffer that follows, washes away probe that is not
fully hybridized (84). The hybridization buffer uses formamide at a NaCl concentration
of 0.9 M (153) to adjust its stringency (Figure 2.3) (142). In contrast, the washing
buffer uses varying amounts of NaCl to adjust its stringency as formamide is toxic. The
formamide concentration in the hybridization buffer is dependent on its oligonucleotide
sequence (Figure 2.1) (92). In turn, the NaCl concentration in the washing buffer is
dependent on the formamide concentration used in the hybridization buffer (Table 2.2)
(143).
The FISH assay reported by Poppert et al. (32) was applied with changes. So that
a single incubator or water-bath could be used, all steps in the assay were set to 47 ◦C
(2). To reduce the reaction time and the drying out of reagents, for slide incubations,
preheated 50 ml centrifuge tubes with screw-caps (Greiner, 210-261) were used (3). To
simplify reagent preparation, the hybridization buffers in the project mostly used 30%
formamide and a washing buffer set to 0.225 M NaCl (1).
For hybridization, 10 µl of buffer [30 % formamide (v/v), 0.9 mol/L NaCl (153), 20
mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 0.02 % (v/v) SDS, 0.5 µg/ml DAPI, and Milli-Q water] with 1
µM of oligonucleotide probe was spotted to the slides, the slides were fitted in 50 ml
tubes and placed in a 47 ◦C incubator for 20 minutes (32). If urea was substituted for
formamide (153), 30 µl of urea-NaCl [1 mol l−1 urea (Sigma, U6504), 0.9 mol l−1 NaCl,
20 µmol l−1 Tris-HCl (pH 7.0) in MQ water] with 1 µmol l−1 of probe was spotted to
each well (5) and the slides were incubated as before.
If impure or uncultured specimens were tested and non-specific binding was high,
a FISH assay that was more complex than the common assay for SA was used (116).
The hybridization buffer [35 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 2.5× standard sodium citrate buffer
46 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
(SSC), 5 mM EDTA, 0.05% SDS, 0.05% Na-Pyrophosphate, 0.45 M NaCl, 22.5% deion-
ized formamide] also contained blocking agents [2.5×Denhardt’s and 50 µg/ml herring-
sperm-DNA]. The hybridization buffer was incubated twice with the specimen. The
first time without the oligonucleotide probe to block non-specific binding, and the sec-
ond time for hybridization with the probe. The washing buffer that followed contained
2×SSC.
Figure 2.3: The melting temperature (Tm) in ◦C of 1 µM of the Staaur probe to SAby formamide (Fa %) or NaCl (M) concentration (92).
2.6 Step 5: Specimen washing with buffer 47
2.6 Step 5: Specimen washing with buffer
After hybridization, slides were immediately fitted into 50 ml tubes of prewarmed
washing buffer [5 mM EDTA (Sigma, EDS), 0.64 M NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl and 0.02%
(w/v) SDS in MQ water] (142). Tubes were then placed in a 47 ◦C water bath for
three minutes and agitated (4). This washing action was stopped by briefly rinsing the
slides at room temperature in a 50 ml tube of MQ water (32).
Buffers other than the conventional NaCl-based washing buffer were also tested.
Preheated PBS was used to remove unbound probes since PBS has a surfactant quality
and its ionicity is approximately 0.15 M (2). The results were not as specific as a full
washing buffer, but were simple to apply and adequate for rapid testing (3). Preheated
urea with NaCl was also tested to remove unbound probe [8 mol l−1 urea, 0.9 mol l−1
NaCl (153), MQ water and 20 µmol l−1 Tris-HCl (pH 7.0)] (5). After washing, the
slides were mounted while wet for viewing with a cover-slip.
If biotinylated oligonucleotides were used (2), after the washing step, the slides were
dried with pressurized air and then spotted with 10 µL of streptavidin conjugated to
Alexa Fluor R© 488 (Invitrogen, S-32354), DyLight R© 488 (Thermo Fisher, 21832) or
Alexa Fluor R© 555 (Invitrogen, S-32355) at 10 µg/ml in PBS (145, 45). Slides were
incubated at 47 ◦C for 10 minutes, rinsed with PBS and mounted as before for viewing.
For time-resolved europium chelates labeled with FISH, the hybridization buffer
was rinsed off with MQ water, the slides air-dried and 10 µl of fluorescence enhancing
buffer (FEB) buffer (148) containing 0.4 mM Eu3+ was spotted to each well. The
slides were mounted while wet with a cover-slip and left at room temperature for 20
minutes before viewing.
2.7 Direct visualization of microorganisms
SA on the slides were observed with an epifluorescence microscope (Olympus, BX51)
fitted with a 40 or 60× dry objective (Olympus, UPLFLN) and FITC/DAPI filters
(Olympus, U-MWU2, U-MWIB2). Images were acquired at a resolution of 1360×1024
48 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
with a color camera (Olympus, DP72) and software (Olympus, DP2-BSW v2.2) set to
a gain of 200 ISO and an exposure of 0.5 to 2 seconds.
Fluorophores that become excited at a particular wavelength, will always emit at
a wavelength that is longer. A blue light excited fluorophore will usually emit green,
a green excited fluorophore will emit red and so on (72). The signal intensity of the
FISH probe is dependent on the type of fluorophore and oligonucleotide used and the
accessibility and abundance of the in situ rRNA (84). Alexa Fluor R© (Invitrogen) and
Dylight R© (Jackson) fluorochromes have a higher-yield than dyes such as Cy3 and Cy5
cyanine. PNA has a higher binding affinity than DNA (102). SA in exponential growth
phase has a higher number of rRNA than SA in stasis and the target rRNA sequence
for EUB338 is more accessible than the target for Staaur (data not shown).
SA could be identified by its specific oligonucleotide signal and by its arrangement
on the slide even after first culturing. Cultures of SA tended to cluster in tetrad
arrangements and cultures of SE in staphylococci arrangements (48, 79). SA and SE
differed also in their reaction to permeabilization treatments (32). SA is more sensitive
to lysostaphin and SE to lysozyme (147). If only lysostaphin was applied, SA labeled
brightly and SE did not. If only lysozyme was applied, SE labeled brightly and SA did
not.
Time-gated bio-imaging of a europium chelate label
For the TGLM visualization of SA, slides were viewed with an epifluorescence micro-
scope (BX51, Olympus) and a 40 and 60× objective (UPLFLN, Olympus) fitted with
a time-gated auto-synchronous luminescence detector (GALD) held in its DIC prism
slot (148). The short-lived background signal of the specimen was removed and the
long-lifetime probe emission was detected by gating the emission signal. The GALD
device was excited with 355 nm UV from a 100 mW YAG laser source. It used a
rotating element that simultaneously pulsed the specimen, suppressed its short-lived
autofluorescence and allowed the passage of long-lived probe emission (148).
2.7 Direct visualization of microorganisms 49
2.7.1 FISH image and statistical analysis
A representative image of each FISH experiment, that had a SA count of at least
100, was selected for analysis. These images were analyzed using standard algorithms
with ImageJ (NIH, v1.43u). Counts, morphology and permeabilization of the SA were
assessed against a 50 µm haemocytometer grid, the FISH signal and DAPI staining
(2). The SA cells were then masked with automatic thresholding so that the mean
FISH signal in 8-bit Grey-scale, the size of the cells and the ratio of cells with signal
to those without, could be calculated with FISH and DAPI (3).
For statistical analysis, parametric assumptions were tested with a histogram of
the FISH signal and a P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. The mean signal
intensity in 8-bit gray-scale, standard deviation and its 95% confidence interval were
calculated. The summary statistics of a new FISH treatment were compared to a con-
trol (32) with either an unpaired two-tail t-test or with a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to test for a significant difference (3).
50 Methodology: FISH with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes
3Improvements to the existing FISH method
The project investigated the use of FISH for the detection of S. aureus (SA) (19, 32).
This Chapter reports on improvements that were made to the FISH assay during its
investigation. It includes an assessment of established and newly identified probes
(often called oligonucleotides) specific for SA (1). The shortening of the preparation
and storage of reagents for the FISH assay is described (2). It recounts an attempt
to optimize the permeabilization of SA so that probes of large-molecular weight can
access SA 16S rRNA (2) without lengthening the FISH assay beyond one hour (101).
Finally, this Chapter reports on the identification of SA with a FISH assay that can
be completed in half the time (3) of the previous fastest reported FISH assay (32).
The Chapter comprises of three sections. Each of these sections was published in a
peer reviewed journal and included as such. In the first paper, an in silico evaluation
and testing of FISH probes that target 16S rRNA SA is described: Lawson TS, Con-
nally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. In silico evaluation and testing of fluorescence in situ
hybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus. Lab Med 2011;42:587-591
(1). In the second paper, optimization of a two-step permeabilization technique for SA
is described: Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Optimization of a two-
step permeabilization fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for the detection
of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:359-365 (2). In the third paper, the
51
52 Improvements to the existing FISH method
procedure for substantially shortening the typical FISH assay for SA is described: Law-
son TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Express fluorescence in situ hybridization
methods for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin lab 2011;57:789-794 (3).
labmedicine.com December 2011 ■ Volume 42 Number 12 ■ LABMEDICINE 1
Science
Staphylococcus aureus is a clinically important pathogen.1-3 Whole-cell slide based fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a molecular assay that can reliably detect and dif-ferentiate S. aureus from S. epidermidis.4-6 Fluorescence in situ hybridization detection involves hybridizing small subunit ribosomal ribonucleic acid (16S rRNA) with DNA probes.7 The accuracy of FISH is dependent upon the hybridization efficiency (HE) of its probes to S. aureus and to non-targets such as S. epidermidis.5,6,8,9 The number of probes reported to be specific to S. aureus is small.3,6,8,10,11 Until recently, probe design calculations were limited to online software provided for polymerase chain reaction (PCR).12 With new online software tools available,13,14 and mathFISH specific for FISH probe design,15 it may be possible to predict and compare
the accuracy of these existing probes as well as identify better probes that can target S. aureus.
Staphylococcus aureus also provides a unique opportunity to test the accuracy of these tools. Because of the similarity between S. aureus and S. epidermidis 16S rRNA, there are few possible misaligned sequences that can be targeted by probes. This is evident in the overlap of all reported probes for S. aureus about the 16S69 5'- AAGCTTCTCGTCCG -3' se-quence as illustrated in Figure 1. Even so, the number of pos-sible probes per misaligned sequence can still be large; about 450 for the 16S69 sequence. Online tools such as NCBI-Nucleotide,13 Ribosomal Database Project,16 NCBI-Blast,13 Reverse-Complement,12 Probecheck,14 and mathFISH15 are useful as they can rapidly characterize these sequences. The accuracy of the tools can be assessed thoroughly by comparing predicted results to those in the laboratory from this and pre-vious studies for the 16S69 sequence. Where probe names are listed, the original author designation is chosen first, otherwise the common name or the author’s initials with the number of bases is given.
Materials and Methods
Identifying 16S rRNA S. aureus Probes In Silico
The S. aureus and non-target 16S rRNA sequences were acquired from NCBI-Nucleotide (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuc-core),17 the Ribosomal Database Project identified closely
In Silico Evaluation and Testing of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization 16S rRNA Probes for Staphylococcus aureusThomas S. Lawson, MSc, Russell E. Connally, PhD, Subramanyam Vemulpad, PhD, James A. Piper, PhD
(Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia)
DOI: 10.1309/LMI4L6CF6HGFBGYA
Abstract
Background: Staphylococcus aureus is a clinically important pathogen. A small number of whole-cell fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) probes have been reported to detect S. aureus. New online computational tools for in silico design and testing make it possible to assess candidate FISH probes for S. aureus. Materials and Methods: Six online tools, NCBI-Nucleotide, Ribosomal Database Project, NCBI-Blast, Reverse-Complement, Probecheck, and mathFISH, were employed in a workflow
to evaluate FISH probes for S. aureus. A previously reported probe Staaur-16S69 was compared to a new probe KT18-16S68 predicted by mathFISH to have the same performance. Results: A number of new probes for S. aureus were predicted to perform as well or better in silico as those previously reported. When tested in a FISH assay, Staaur and a new probe KT18 were found to have the same performance.
Conclusion: Existing and new FISH probes for S. aureus were found to be accurately identified and characterized with online computational tools. In silico evaluation of probes has the potential to reduce the time spent evaluating probes in the laboratory. Keywords: fluorescence in situ hybridization, FISH, hybridization efficiency, mathFISH, probes, Staphylococcus aureus
Submitted 2.25.2011 | Revision Received 4.25.2011 | Accepted 5.13.2011
Corresponding Author
Thomas S. Lawson, MSc
tomxlawson@gmail.com, thomas.lawson@students.mq.edu.au
Abbreviations
FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; HE, hybridization effi-
ciency; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; PNA, peptide nucleic acid;
CoNS, staphylococci; FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate
3.1 In silico evaluation and testing of fluorescence in situhybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus 53
3.1 In silico evaluation and testing of fluorescence in situ hybridization 16S
rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus
Science
2 LABMEDICINE ■ Volume 42 Number 12 ■ December 2011 labmedicine.com
related microbes such as S. epidermidis (rdp.cme.msu.edu),16 NCBI-Blast aligned S. aureus and S. epidermidis sequences NCBI-Blast (blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov),13 and the cross-reactiv-ity to other microbes of identified mismatch sequences was confirmed with Probecheck (microbial-ecology.net/probe-check) against the SILVA sequence collection.14 Staphylococcus
aureus (GenBank: CP000253.1) and S. epidermidis (GenBank: AF397060.1) 16S ribosomal RNA alignment was compared, and mismatches were identified at the 69 to 89, 183 to 198, 452 to 477, and 999 to 1024 positions relative to E. coli 16S rRNA.13,14 The sequence of 999 to 1024 was not consid-ered further as it was found to hybridize with a number of Staphylococcus species including S. haemolyticus, which is fre-quently detected in blood cultures.2,3
Next, the mathFISH tool analyzed the HE of each mismatch 16S rRNA sequence (mathfish.cee.wisc.edu).15 The 183 to 193 and 452 to 477 sequences were assessed to have poor HE by the oligonucleotide walk-though feature of mathFISH set at 18 bases.18 The first mismatch 16S rRNA sequence at 69 to 89 was analyzed in more detail. The oli-gonucleotide walk-though feature of mathFISH was applied again at 18, 19, 22, and 25 bases lengths, which matched the lengths of previously reported S. aureus probes for this sequence.3,6,8,11 A pattern emerged where the 5' end of a potential probe was most efficient at the 65 to 67 positions. Probes from 15 to 30 bases were tested at this location using the mismatch feature of mathFISH,19 and a number of poten-tial probe candidates were realized including probes already reported (Table 1 and Table 2). For the calculations, 0.9 NaCl in the hybridization buffer, 47°C hybridization incubation, and 1 µM of probe was assumed.20
Figure 1_Alignment of S. aureus probes with S. aureus and S. epi-dermidis sequence rRNA. Mismatches to S. epidermidis at 16S72, 16S79, and 16S88 are highlighted. As genome 16S rRNA was aligned, thymine (T), instead of RNA’s uracil (U) is shown.
Sau66-16S66
KT18-SA68
Staaur-16S69
Staur-16S69
WQ25-16S67
S. aureus
S. epidermidis
5’ end 3’ endCommon sequence
3’ end 5’ end
Table 1_The Predicted Hybridization Efficiency of Previously Reported DNA Probe Sequences to S. aureus 16S rRNA and Not to S. epidermidis
Name* DNA probe (5'– 3')† FA %‡ SA ∆G kcal/mol§ SE ∆G kcal/mol# HE¶
Sau66-16S663 AAGCTTCTCGTCCGTTCG 29.9 –14.1 –4.7 1.00
WQ25-16S676 AGAGAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTTC 42.3 –14.8 –5.4 1.00
JG24-16S6810 AGAGAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTT 41.9 –15.0 –5.3 1.00
Staaur-16S6911 GAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG 23.7 –12.1 –5.8 0.99
Staur-16S698 AGAGAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG 30.6 –12.2 –4.5 0.99
*Probe designation (name) includes number of bases and 5 ' end location relative to the 16S rRNA sequence of E. coli.†Thermodynamic calculations assume a single DNA probe binding to a target 16S rRNA sequence.‡Formamide concentration (FA %) assume 1 µM probe dissociation at 47°C in 0.9 NaCl buffer. §Overall Gibbs binding potential to S. aureus (SA DeltaGo kcal/mol). #Overall Gibbs binding potential to S. epidermidis (SE DeltaGo kcal/mol). ¶Difference in hybridization efficiency (HE) was calculated by subtracting HE of the probe to S. epidermidis from the probe to S. aureus.
Table 2_The Predicted Hybridization Efficiency of DNA Probe Sequences Identified in This Study to S. aureus 16S rRNA and Not to S. epidermidis
Name* DNA Probe (5'–3')† FA %‡ SA ∆G kcal/mol§ SE ∆G kcal/mol# HE¶
KT16-16S65 CTTCTCGTCCGTTCGC 33.7 –14.5 –4.9 1.00
KT15-16S66 CTTCTCGTCCGTTCG 20.2 –12.0 –2.4 0.99
KT20-16S66 GCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTTCG 38.3 –15.0 –5.5 1.00
KT25-16S66 GAGAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTTCG 43.3 –15.0 –5.1 0.99
KT26-16S66 AGAGAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTTCG 44.5 –15.3 –4.9 1.00
KT18-16S68 GCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTT 35.3 –14.8 –5.9 0.99
KT30-16S69 CTAACATCAGAGAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG 47.0 –17.3 –4.3 1.00
*Probe designation (name) includes number of bases and 5 ' end location relative to the 16S rRNA sequence of E. coli.†Thermodynamic calculations assume a single DNA probe binding to a target 16S rRNA sequence.‡Formamide concentration (FA %) assume 1 µM probe dissociation at 47°C in 0.9 NaCl buffer. §Overall Gibbs binding potential to S. aureus (SA DeltaGo kcal/mol). #Overall Gibbs binding potential to S. epidermidis (SE DeltaGo kcal/mol). ¶Difference in hybridization efficiency (HE) was calculated by subtracting HE of the probe to S. epidermidis from the probe to S. aureus.
54 Improvements to the existing FISH method
Science
labmedicine.com December 2011 ■ Volume 42 Number 12 ■ LABMEDICINE 3
Assessing 16S rRNA S. aureus Probes In Silico
Table 1 and Table 2 list the DeltaGo for S. aureus and the DeltaGo for S. epidermidis and the difference in HE for probes between S. aureus and S. epidermidis. The DeltaGo indicates the standard state overall Gibbs free energy of the probe-target hybrid: the probability of probe to target binding (DNA:RNA) given the competing interactions of probe (DNA:DNA) and target (RNA:RNA) self-binding.21 The higher the negative number, the stronger the potential probe-target binding. Hybridization efficiency indicated the predicted ratio of target molecules bound with probe to all target molecules. An HE of 1 indicated saturation and 0 no hybridization.
A probe’s usefulness was usually defined by its predicted (and tested) sensitivity and specificity to its target and non-target microbes.2,6,22 Sensitivity refers to how good a probe was at correctly identifying the target microbe S. aureus.23 Specificity, on the other hand, indicated how good the probe was at not binding to non-target microbes.23 Generally the predicted DeltaGo and HE indicates both sensitivity and specificity whereas the formamide dissociation indicates only sensitivity.15
A probe was predicted to have a high sensitivity if it has a DeltaGo between -17 and -13 kcal/mol to S. aureus, a differ-ence in DeltaGo between S. aureus and a non-target such as S. epidermidis greater than 3 kcal/mol, a formamide dissociation concentration difference between S. aureus and S. epidermidis greater than 20% (v/v), an HE greater than 0.9, and a differ-ence in HE between S. aureus and S. epidermidis greater than 0.8.15
A probe should have at least -10 kcal/mol DeltaGo to S. aureus to be sensitive, but it does not need to meet all of the other criteria. A S. aureus probe such as Staphy11 with no dif-ference in DeltaGo and HE to non-targets, but a formamide difference greater than 20%, can still be useful. A probe was predicted to have a high specificity if the DeltaGo to S. aureus was greater than -13 kcal/mol, the DeltaGo to non-targets was less than -10 kcal/mol, and the difference in HE between S. aureus and S. epidermidis was greater than 0.8.15
Testing S. aureus 16S rRNA Probes With FISH
The accuracy of the online tools was tested by compar-ing predicted results to results in the laboratory with FISH. Two probes were compared, Staaur (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, Staaur-16S69: 5'- GAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG -3')11 and a new probe KT18 (Invitrogen, KT18-16S68: 5'- GCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTT -3') (present study). Staaur is frequently cited in FISH studies of S. aureus.2,4,22 KT18 was chosen as it was predicted to match the HE of Staaur (Table 2).
Specimens were collected from blood agar plates at a major hospital and stored so that 10 isolates of S. aureus and S. epidermidis could be rapidly tested with FISH at a non-clinical location. Isolate identity was confirmed with PCR24 and then de-identified for FISH. After culturing in nutrient broth (Oxoid, Hampshire, U.K., CM0001), isolates were aliquoted and pelleted for up to 3 months storage at -20°C as described by Baldrich and colleagues.25 Before testing with FISH, isolates were thawed and re-cultured for 70 minutes in nutrient broth until turbid (0.5 McFarland).25 No difference was observed in the results when isolates were tested directly from agar plates.
A FISH assay reported by Poppert and colleagues22 was applied with some modifications. To minimize reac-tion time, preheated 50 mL centrifuge tubes with screw-caps (Greiner, 210-261) were used for reagents and slides. As it simplified the assay without a reduction in HE, the hybrid-ization and washing steps were set at 47°C. The hybridiza-tion buffer contained 0.9 NaCl and probes at 1 µM. The 2 S. aureus DNA probes tested and a control eubacteria probe EUB338 probe (Invitrogen, EUB338-16S337: 5'- GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT -3') were conjugated at the 5' end to Alexa Fluor 488 (Invitrogen). As the mathFISH calculations were based upon DNA probes, peptide nucleic acid (PNA) probes were not tested.15 With each experiment, the 2 slides with 5 wells each were tested (Menzel-Gläser, Braunschweig, Germany, X1XER308B).
To compare the 2 S. aureus probes, cells were observed with an epifluorescence microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan, BX51) fitted with a 60× dry objective (Olympus, UPLFLN) and FITC/DAPI filters (Olympus, U-MWU2, U-MWIB2); images were acquired at a resolution of 1360 × 1024 with a color camera (Olympus, DP72) and software (Olympus, DP2-BSW v2.2) set to a gain of 200 ISO and an exposure of 400 ms; and analyzed with ImageJ using standard algorithms (NIH, v1.43u). Cell counts were estimated with a 50 µm haemacytometer grid and a DAPI (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, D9564) counter-stain. Signal intensity was measured by seg-menting images with the same threshold level. For statistical analysis, parametric assumptions were tested with a histogram of the signal and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. The mean signal intensity 8-bit grayscale, stan-dard deviation, and a 95% confidence interval for each probe image was calculated. Summary statistics were compared with an unpaired 2-tail t test. The ratio of cells with FISH and DAPI signal to those with just DAPI signal was also measured for both probes.
Results
Assessing 16S rRNA S. aureus Probes In Silico
A number of new probes for S. aureus were predicted to perform as well or better in silico than those previously cited. Table 1 lists probe sequences previously tested and found to be sensitive and specific to S. aureus. Table 2 lists probe sequences predicted in this study as sensitive and specific to S. aureus. Because of the single viable region on S. aureus for probe targeting (Figure 1), all the potential probes and the reported probes overlapped and, in some cases, were almost identical. It is apparent from Table 1 and Table 2 that KT15-16S66 is identical to KT16-16S65, except that the latter was missing the last base at the 3' end; and WQ25-16S67 is identical to KT26-16S66, except that the latter was missing the last base at the 3' end.
A majority of probes in Table 1 and Table 2 had a pre-dicted high sensitivity to S. aureus; DeltaGo to S. aureus was between -17 and -13 kcal/mol, the DeltaGo to S. epidermidis was less than -10 kcal/mol, a formamide difference greater than 20% (not shown) and an HE difference greater than 0.8. A majority of probes also had a predicted high specificity to S. aureus; DeltaGo to S. aureus was greater than -13 kcal/mol, the DeltaGo to S. epidermidis was less than -10 kcal/mol, and the difference in HE was greater than 0.8. The reported
3.1 In silico evaluation and testing of fluorescence in situhybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus 55
Science
4 LABMEDICINE ■ Volume 42 Number 12 ■ December 2011 labmedicine.com
probes Staaur-16S69, Staur-16S69, and the newly identified probe KT15-16S66 had DeltaGo lower than -13 kcal/mol, which suggests they might be marginally prone to false nega-tives as compared to the other probes.
Table 1 and Table 2 also list the predicted formamide melting concentration (v/v) as a percentage for each probe. This was the stringency at which half the probe has annealed (or dissociated) from the target. The melting point formamide concentrations ranged from 20.2% (v/v) for the shortest probe KT15-16S66 to 47.0% for the longest probe KT30-16S69. It should be noted that the predicted formamide concentration is not the actual concentration used by the hy-bridization buffer and FISH for that probe. The hybridization buffer should have a lower stringency, and so the formamide concentration used is typically 5% to 10% higher than what was predicted.2,6,22 The washing buffer stringency (set with NaCl and not formamide) is higher than the hybridization buffer.2,6,22
Testing S. aureus 16S rRNA Probes With FISH
Except for Staur-16S69, the reported sensitivity and spec-ificity of S. aureus probes used in other studies were similar to the sensitivity and specificity predicted in this study. The studies by Jansen and colleagues,10 Tavares and colleagues,3 and Poppert and colleagues22 were completed in a clinical setting with blood cultures that contained S. aureus, coagu-lase-negative Staphylococci (CoNS), Micrococcus spp., and Rotia spp. Probe sensitivity and specificity to S. aureus were as follows: Sau66-16S66, 100% and 99%;3 JG24-16S68, no data available; Staaur-16S69, 100% and 100%;22 and Staur-16S69, 68% and 100%.10 The poor Staur-16S69 findings in Jansen and colleagues10 were confirmed elsewhere26 and were attributed to either differences in the permeability5 of the S. aureus cell wall or steric hindrance.26 A study by Wu and col-leagues6 was also completed in a clinical setting, but the study tested urinary tract infection samples containing S. aureus, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis directly without first
culturing. The sensitivity and specificity of the WQ25-16S67 probe used to detect S. aureus was 100% and 98% respec-tively.6
When tested with a FISH assay in this study, Staaur-16S69 and a new probe KT18-16S68 were found to have a similar signal intensity to S. aureus and similar specificity to S. epidermidis. The FISH experiment was performed twice. First, to ascertain the optimal formamide concentration, each probe was tested at 0%, 15%, 30%, 45%, and 60% formamide (v/v). The optimal formamide concentration was found to be 30% for both Staaur and KT18. Next, the signal intensity of the probes was compared at 30% formamide. No difference in signal was observed in Image 1. Lastly, S. aureus and S. epidermidis were mixed and analyzed in the same sample to determine interference, sensitivity, and the limit of detection. Staphylococcus aureus was clearly identified with either the Staaur or the KT18 probes at 10(3) density amongst S. epi-dermidis at 10(8). To ensure that S. epidermidis was not also labeled with these probes, a polyclonal antibody conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and specific to S. aureus (ViroStat, Portland, ME) was applied to the slides after FISH. The immunofluorescence signal labeled the outside of only those cells that had a FISH signal.
The signal intensity was measured with ImageJ and found to be 28.201 ± 0.59 for Staaur and 28.614 ± 0.52 for KT18 (8-bit grayscale). An unpaired t test of the signal intensity for each probe was not significantly different (cell count >200; P=0.39). The ratio of cells with FISH signal to those without was also compared. No difference was measured between the 2 probes. For both FISH experiments, no cross-reactivity was observed; S. aureus was positive for the Staaur and KT18 probes and S. epidermidis was not.
Discussion
We set out to test the efficacy of a number of online tools to evaluate FISH probes for S. aureus. Since S. aureus has a single sequence that can be targeted for FISH, it was considered
Image 1_S. aureus labeled with (A) Staaur probe and (B) KT18 probe were compared. Both probes were conjugated with Alexa Fluor 488. No difference was observed. Bar is 10 µm.
A B
56 Improvements to the existing FISH method
Science
labmedicine.com December 2011 ■ Volume 42 Number 12 ■ LABMEDICINE 5
unlikely that any new probes determined in silico would be as efficient as those previously reported (Table 1). It was therefore surprising that a number of new probes for S. aureus were predicted to perform as well or better in silico (Table 2). In particular, KT26-16S66 and KT30-16S69 were found to have a high predicted difference in DeltaGo and HE.18 When tested with a FISH assay, Staaur and a new probe KT18 were found to have similar HE18 and melting formamide point concentrations27 as predicted. In addition, a new online tool, mathFISH, was found to offer a number of advantages in the development of FISH probes.15 First it calculated the interac-tions observed in FISH between the probe and the target, self-folding within the probe itself and within the rRNA target. Next, it predicted the most efficient 5' end location for a DNA probe within a mismatch sequence,19 the HE for probes of different lengths at that location,18 and the melting formamide point concentration of selected probes.27
A general probe for Staphylococcus was also tested in silico. The results were more difficult to assess than with S. aureus as the number of probe possibilities and poten-tial non-target microbes were larger and were complicated by mismatches spanning across more than 1 base. The speed advantage of mathFISH to walk an oligonucleotide of a set length across a sequence range became more ap-parent when more than 1 target sequence was analyzed.21 Potential target sequences were sought by aligning and analyzing mismatches between S. aureus and Streptococcus agalactiae (GenBank, HQ658089.1). Candidate probe sequences were also compared with Enterococcus faecalis (GenBank, FJ749378.1) and Micrococcus luteus (GenBank, HQ323416.1) as these gram-positive aerobic cocci are fre-quently encountered in blood culture and can be confused with S. aureus.1-3 A probe for Staphylococcus RB17-16S696 5'- CTCCATATCTCTGCGCA -3', was found to be at least as efficient as the reported Staphy probe (Staphy-16S697 5'- TCCTCCATATCTCTGCGC -3').11 But further testing in the laboratory with FISH is needed to confirm its specificity.
This study had a number of limitations. The large sub-unit rRNA was not assessed in silico,7 nor was a reported 23S rRNA probe Saur72 analyzed.9 A representative GenBank sequence was chosen for S. aureus and S. epidermidis. The in silico calculation assumptions were experimentally dem-onstrated on E. coli after an extended hybridization step by Yilmaz and Noguera,21 but the FISH assay in the present study verified the in silico results on S. aureus with a 10 min-ute incubation step.22 Hybridization efficiency calculations assumed no added formamide,18 but in practice formamide is rarely excluded.2,4,22 When confirming the computed predic-tions with a FISH assay, only 1 probe candidate KT18 was tested with FISH against a known probe Staaur. The FISH assay was run on pure cultures of patient isolates and not on reference strains or as is usually the case, with clinical FISH, directly from blood cultures.2,4,22 Since there was some varia-tion in the signal observed between slides and between FISH experiments, representative images were chosen from slides treated the same day with FISH and from the same location on each slide. Image analysis was complicated by the inclusion of cells at a lower signal outside the focal plane and by DAPI bleeding.
In conclusion, the characterization of existing and new probes for S. aureus was greatly enhanced by in silico testing. We were able to assess the HE of KT18-SA68 to S. aureus in silico and confirm these calculations with minimal FISH
testing. To determine their applicability and reliability, the probe sequences predicted in this study as specific for S. au-reus, warrant further testing with FISH in a routine clinical setting against positive blood cultures containing a variety of additional Staphylococcus spp. LM
Acknowledgements: The study was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects (LP0775196). Our thanks to the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility for laboratory access.
1. Kempf VA, Trebesius K, Autenrieth IB. Fluorescent in situ hybridization allows rapid identification of microorganisms in blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:830-838.
2. Wang P. Simultaneous detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Med Princ Pract. 2010;19:218-221.
3. Tavares A, Inácio J, Melo-Cristino J, et al. Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization for rapid identification of staphylococci in blood culture samples collected in a Portuguese hospital. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:3097-3100.
4. Gescher DM, Kovacevic D, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) accelerates identification of Gram-positive cocci in positive blood cultures. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;32(suppl 1):S51-S59.
5. Jansen GJ, Mooibroek M, Idema J, et al. Rapid identification of bacteria in blood cultures by using fluorescently labeled oligonucleotide probes. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:814-817.
6. Wu Q, Li Y, Wang M, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization rapidly detects three different pathogenic bacteria in urinary tract infection samples. J Microbiol Methods. 2010;83:175-178.
7. Amann R, Fuchs BM. Single-cell identification in microbial communities by improved fluorescence in situ hybridization techniques. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:339-348.
8. Bentley RW, Harland NM, Leigh JA, et al. A Staphylococcus aureus-specific oligonucleotide probe derived from 16S rRNA gene sequences. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1993;16:203-206.
9. Veeh RH, Shirtliff ME, Petik JR, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm on tampons and menses components. J Infect Dis. 2003;188:519-530.
10. Jansen G, Degener J, Welling G. Method for the rapid determination of bacteria. Eur pat. 1999. WO Patent WO/1999/054,502.
11. Trebesius K, Leitritz L, Adler K, et al. Culture independent and rapid identification of bacterial pathogens in necrotising fasciitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2000;188:169-175.
12. Stothard P. The sequence manipulation suite: JavaScript programs for analyzing and formatting protein and DNA sequences. Biotechniques. 2000;28:1102-1104.
13. Johnson M, Zaretskaya I, Raytselis Y, et al. NCBI BLAST: A better Web interface. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:W5-W9.
14. Loy A, Arnold R, Tischler P, et al. probeCheck—a central resource for evaluating oligonucleotide probe coverage and specificity. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:2894-2898.
15. Yilmaz LS, Parnerkar S, Noguera DR. mathFISH, a Web tool that uses thermodynamics-based mathematical models for in silico evaluation of oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:1118-1122.
16. Cole JR, Wang Q, Cardenas E, et al. The Ribosomal Database Project: Improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37:141-145.
17. Madden T. The NCBI Handbook. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information; 2003;16:1-17.
18. Yilmaz LS, Okten HE, Noguera DR. Making all parts of the 16S rRNA of Escherichia coli accessible in situ to single DNA oligonucleotides. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:733-744.
19. Yilmaz LS, Bergsven LI, Noguera DR. Systematic evaluation of single mismatch stability predictors for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Environmental Microbiology. 2008;10:2872-2885.
20. Szweda P, Kotlowski R, Kur J. New effective sources of the Staphylococcus simulans lysostaphin. Journal of Biotechnology. 2005;117:203-213.
21. Yilmaz LS, Noguera DR. Mechanistic approach to the problem of hybridization efficiency in fluorescent in situ hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:7126-7139.
3.1 In silico evaluation and testing of fluorescence in situhybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus 57
Science
6 LABMEDICINE ■ Volume 42 Number 12 ■ December 2011 labmedicine.com
22. Poppert S, Riecker M, Wellinghausen N, et al. Accelerated identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures by a modified fluorescence in situ hybridization procedure. J Med Microbiol. 2010;59:65-68.
23. Loong T. Understanding sensitivity and specificity with the right side of the brain. BMJ. 2003;327:716-719.
24. Thomas LC, Gidding HF, Ginn AN, et al. Development of a real-time Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA (SAM-) PCR for routine blood culture. J Microbiol Methods. 2007;68:296-302.
25. Baldrich E, Vigués N, Mas J, et al. Sensing bacteria but treating them well: Determination of optimal incubation and storage conditions. Anal Biochem. 2008;383:68-75.
26. Ikeda M, Yamaguchi N, Tani K, et al. Development of phylogenetic oligonucleotide probes for screening foodborne bacteria. J Health Sci. 2005;51:469-476.
27. Yilmaz LS, Noguera DR. Development of thermodynamic models for simulating probe dissociation profiles in fluorescence in situ hybridization. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2007;96:349-363.
58 Improvements to the existing FISH method
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis 25 : 359–365 (2011)
Optimization of a Two-Step Permeabilization FluorescenceIn Situ Hybridization (FISH) Assay for the Detection
of Staphylococcus aureusThomas S. Lawson,� Russell E. Connally, Subramanyam Vemulpad,
and James A. PiperMacquarie University, Faculty of Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Background: Aspects of the fluorescence insitu hybridization (FISH) method for thedetection of clinically important bacteria,such as Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylo-coccus epidermidis, and Escherichiacoli, were investigated for optimization.Methods: Various approaches to optimizingthe FISH procedure were taken and differ-ent methods were compared. To save time,hybridization and washing buffers wereprepared beforehand and stored at �201Cand mixed to their final formamide andNaCl concentrations just before use.The use of 50-ml tubes for hybridization
incubation reduced drying out, reagentwastage, and reaction times. Results:A two-step permeabilization FISH assaywas developed that used phosphate-bufferedsaline as a buffer for lysostaphin. It coulddetect bacteria with DNA probes conjugatedto fluorophores with a higher signal intensityand the less expensive biotinylatedDNA probes with minimal cell lysis in 1 hr.Conclusions: The two-step assay might beused when the FISH signal is weak, bacterialnumbers are low or if there is a need to useother reporter molecules. J. Clin. Lab. Anal.25:359–365, 2011. r 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Key words: fluorescence in situ hybridization; FISH; Gram-positive bacteria; moleculardiagnostic techniques; Staphylococcus aureus; Staphylococcus epidermidis;Staphylococci
INTRODUCTION
Following a positive blood-culture and Gram-stain,fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) can be used toidentify the bacteria present such as the clinically importantStaphylococcus aureus (1–4). The FISH procedure typicallyuses a single permeabilization step (hereafter referred to asthe one-step FISH assay) and DNA probes (also calledoligonucleotides or oligos) conjugated to fluorophores(1,5–8). To permeabilize S. aureus, the one-step FISHassay applies a lytic enzyme mixture of lysozyme andlysostaphin. As it can be more robust, FISH can also use atwo-step permeabilization (two-step FISH assay) to detectS. aureus (2,4,9–14). To permeabilize S. aureus, two-stepFISH assay applies a lysozyme step, and a quick waterrinse followed by a lysostaphin step.The DNA probes conjugated to fluorophores (here-
after, oligo-f) are relatively small in molecular weightand so can gain rapid access to in situ rRNA targets.The detection of S. aureus with FISH and biotinylatedprobes (hereafter, oligo-b) is rarely reported (15–17).
Greater permeabilization is needed for streptavidin togain in situ access to acteria as it has a high molecularweight. This can lengthen the assay time (15–17) andlead to over-permeabilization or cell lysis. A rapid oligo-bFISH assay, however could offer cost savings.As far as we are aware, there are no reports of the
detection of S. aureus with a two-step FISH assay andoligo-b in 1hr or less. S. aureus was chosen for testing witholigo-b and FISH as it is an important pathogen and itspermeabilization for DNA probes is more involved. SinceS. epidermidis is phylogenetically similar to S. aureus andits rRNA nearly identical (7), it was included as a negative
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI 10.1002/jcla.20486
Received 29 April 2011; Accepted 21 July 2011
Grant sponsor: Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects; Grant
number: LP0775196.
�Correspondence to: Thomas S. Lawson, Macquarie University,
Faculty of Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
E-mail: tomxlawson@gmail.com
�c 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
3.2 Optimization of a two-step permeabilization fluorescence in situhybridization assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 59
3.2 Optimization of a two-step permeabilization fluorescence in situ hybridiza-
tion assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus
control. E. coli was also tested to ensure that the FISHassays developed could also detect Gram-negativebacteria (11). DNA rather than peptide nucleic acid(PNA) were used as they are less expensive.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two FISH assays were developed and tested. Theseare listed and compared in their optimized form inTable 1. The one-step permeablization FISH assay is amodified version of the FISH assay described byPoppert et al. (1). The two-step permeablization FISHassay extends the one-step assay by the addition of anextra permeabilization step and a streptavidin incuba-tion step (15). Details for the optimized one-step andtwo-step FISH assays are not included in Table 1.
Specimen Preparation
So that isolates could be tested at a nonclinicallocation, clinical patient isolates of S. aureus, Staphylo-coccus epidermidis and Escherichia coli were collected onagar plates from a major hospital. Only penicillin
binding protein (PBP2)-negative S. aureus were selected.Isolate identity was confirmed with polymerase chainreaction (18) and was then de-identified for experimen-tation. To control for potential differences betweenstrains, ten isolates of each type of bacteria werecollected. To enable the isolates to be compared over anumber of FISH experiments, the collected isolates werecultured in nutrient broth (CM0001; Oxoid, Hampshire,UK), centrifuged at 4,000 rcf, aliquoted and frozen asdescribed by Baldrich et al. (19). An aliquot of S. aureus,S. epidermidis, and E. coli was thawed and recultured innutrient broth for testing with FISH. As a control,isolates were tested directly from the plates and nodifference in signal was observed. To test with FISH,cultures of clinical isolates in nutrient broth werespotted (10 ml) onto the slides (X1XER308B; MenzelGlaser, Braunschweig, DE), dried at 801C for 3min, andthen fixed with absolute (m)ethanol for 1min.
Cell Permeabilization
To reduce preparation time, stock solution of lysozyme(L6876; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and lysostaphin(L4402; Sigma) were prepared up to a week in advanceand stored as 1.5-ml aliquots in sterile plastic tubes. Forthe one-step permeabilization FISH assay, 15mg/mllysozyme and 0.1mg/ml lysostaphin were applied inone-step as described by Poppert et al. (1). For the two-step permeabilization assay, 10ml of lysozyme at 15mg/mlin Milli-Qs (MQ) water (Millipore, Billerica, MA) (20,21)was spotted onto the slide wells and incubated in 50-mltubes (210–261; Greiner, Frickenhausen, Germany) for6min at 381C (22). The lysozyme was rinsed off with, PBS(P4417; Sigma), and the slides were rapidly dried withpressurized air (1) or by centrifuging in 50-ml tubes for1min at 100 rcf. Lysostaphin at 0.1mg/ml in PBS wasspotted (10ml) onto the slides and incubated in 50-mltubes at 471C for 6min. Lysostaphin was removed byrinsing the slides in absolute (m)ethanol for 1min andthen drying at 801C for 1min. When E. coli isolates weretested, permeabilization was omitted.
Hybridization
To save time, the hybridization buffer and washingbuffer were prepared in advance. Hybridization buffer(0.9M NaCl, 20mM Tris–HCl, 0.01% (w/v) SDS, and1mg/ml DAPI) with no formamide or with 60% (v/v)deionized formamide were prepared and stored for up to ayear at �201C in 5-ml sterile plastic screw-top tubes.When needed, the buffers were thawed and mixed to thedesired target formamide concentration. The concentra-tion of formamide used in this study was 30% (v/v),about 5% higher than the lowest probe formamidedissociation concentration estimated with mathFISH
TABLE 1. Comparison of the Optimized One-Step or Two-Step Permeabilization FISH Assays
One-step (1) Two-step (This study)
Preparation: Cultures of clinical isolates were diluted with PBS,
spotted, fixed to slides at 801C, fixed in methanol, and air-dried
Permeabilization: Slides were
spotted with lysis reagent
(15mg/ml lysozyme,
0.1mg/ml lysostaphin,
20mM Tris–HCl at pH
7.0 inMQwater) and incu-
bated at 401C, rinsed with
methanol, and air-dried
Permeabilization: Slides were
spotted with 15mg/ml
lysozyme with 20mM
Tris–HCl at pH 7.0 in
MQ water and incubated
at 381C, rinsed with PBS,
and dried with
pressurized air
Permeabilization: Slides were
spotted with 0.1mg/ml
lysostaphin, 20mM
Tris–HCl diluted in PBS
and incubated at 471C,
rinsed with methanol,
and air-dried
Hybridization: Slides were spotted with hybridization buffer (30%
formamide, 0.9M NaCl, 20mM Tris–HCl at pH 8.0, 0.01% SDS, a
1-mM probe, and MQ water), and incubated at 471C
Washing: Slides were incubated with washing buffer (0.3–0.9M NaCl,
20mM Tris–HCl pH 8.0, 0.01% SDS, 10mM EDTA, and MQ
water) at 471C, rinsed with PBS
Mounting: Slides were
mounted with a cover-slip
while wet
Streptavidin/Mounting:
Slides were spotted with
streptavidin-f and
incubated at 381C, rinsed
with PBS, and mounted
with a cover-slip while
wet
360 Lawson et al.
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
60 Improvements to the existing FISH method
(mathfish.cee.wisc.edu) (471C hybridization incubation,0.9M NaCl and 1mM of probe) (23). The oligo (1mM)could be added to the buffer mix and stored at 41C in 1.5-mlsterile plastic aliquots for a week before performing FISH.For hybridization, 10ml of buffer with oligo (1mM) was
spotted onto the slides and incubated at 471C for 10min.Oligos tested were STAAUR specific for S. aureus(STAAUR-16S69: 5- GAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG -3)(12) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), STAPHY specific forStaphylococcus (STAPHY-16S697 5-TCCTCCA-TATCTCTGCGC-3) (12) (Invitrogen), and EUB338specific for eubacteria (EUB338 16S337: 5- GCTGC-CTCCCGTAGGAGT -3) (Sigma) (24) (Invitrogen).These oligos were biotinylated (oligo-b) or directlyconjugated to Alexa Fluors 488 (Invitrogen), AlexaFluors 555, FITC or Cy3 (Genworks, Adelaide,Australia) labeled on the 50 end (oligo-f).
Specimen Washing
In a similar fashion to the hybridization buffer, thewashing buffer without salt (20mM Tris-HCl, 5mMEDTA and 0.01% (w/v) SDS) or with 1.8M NaCl wereprepared and stored for up to a year at 41C in 1 l bottles(GL45; Schott, Mainz, Germany). When needed, thebuffers were mixed to the target NaCl concentration in a50-ml tube, typically 1:4, to make approximately 0.3MNaCl. So that the washing buffer could be reusedmultiple times, before immersing the slide in the 50-mltubes of washing buffer for 3min at 471C, thehybridization buffer was rinsed off with washing buffer.
Streptavidin Conjugation
The slides were removed from the washing buffer andrinsed in PBS. For the one-step FISH assay, the slides weremounted wet with PBS and cover-slips for microscopy. Forthe two-step FISH assay, the slides were dried withpressurized air and spotted with 10ml of streptavidinconjugated to Alexa Fluors 488 (S-32354; Invitrogen)(hereafter, streptavidin-f), DyLights 488 (21832; ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA) or Alexa Fluors 555 (S-32355;Invitrogen) at 10mg/ml in PBS. Slides were incubated at471C for 10min, rinsed with PBS, and mounted as before,for microscopy.
Microscopy and Statistical Analysis
The FISH signal was observed with an epifluorescencemicroscope (BX51; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) fitted witha 60� dry objective (UPLFLN; Olympus) and FITC/DAPI filters (U-MWU2, U-MWIB2; Olympus). Imageswere acquired at a resolution of 1,360� 1,024 with anOlympus DP72 camera and software (DP2-BSW v2.2;Olympus) set to a gain of 200 ISO and an exposure of
400msec. A representative image with a cell count of atleast 100 was selected for each treatment from threeexperiment runs. Images were analyzed with ImageJusing its standard segmentation algorithms (v1.43u;NIH, Bethesda, MD). Cell numbers, morphology, andpermeabilization were assessed with the FISH signal and40,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) (D9564; Sigma).The mean signal intensity (8-bit gray-scale) and stan-dard deviation for each FISH method were calculated.Summary statistics were compared with one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) and a P value of o0.05 wasconsidered significant.
RESULTS
Effect of Different FISH Assays and Probe Typeson Signal
Two FISH assays were tested: the assay by Poppertet al. (1), which included a one-step permeabilizationtreatment and a modified version of that assay thatincluded a two-step permeabilization treatment (Table 1).Each FISH assay was tested with two types of probes:Oligo-f probes that had DNA sequences conjugated tofluorophores and oligo-b probes that had DNA sequencesconjugated to biotin and visualized with streptavidin-f.Each probe type was tested with three probe sequences:the STAAUR probe that was specific for S. aureus and theSTAPHY probe specific for Staphylococcus (12), and theEUB338 probe specific for eubacteria (24).As reported by Poppert et al. (1), the one-step
permeabilization FISH assay successfully detectedS. aureus and differentiated it from S. epidermidis witholigo-f probes in 45min (Fig. 1A). The one-step assay (1),however produced a poor signal for S. aureus with theSTAAUR oligo-b probe (Table 2) and a weak signal forS. epidermidis with the STAPHY oligo-b probe andstreptavidin-f (data not shown). In contrast, the two-steppermeabilization FISH assay successfully detectedS. aureus with oligo-f, oligo-b probes, and streptavidin-fin 1hr (Fig. 1B and D). Furthermore, the two-step assayproduced a higher FISH signal with oligo-f probes than theone-step FISH assay (Table 2). The difference in oligo-fsignal intensity was found to be significant (One-wayANOVA; Po0.05).
Effect of Different Slide and Fixation Preparation
Other aspects of the FISH method werealso investigated for optimization (data not shown).Heat fixing the bacteria on the slides at 801C rather thanair-drying shortened drying time from 10 to 3min. Cellloss from the slides was observed after processingwith FISH. Rinsing the slides with molten 0.2%(w/v) agarose (162-0102; Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA)
361Optimization of FISH for Staphylococcus aureus
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
3.2 Optimization of a two-step permeabilization fluorescence in situhybridization assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 61
minimized this loss (25,26). A number of specimenfixation techniques were tested. Alcohol fixation ofisolates during dilution or after drying onto a slide wasfound to be necessary for a consistent FISH signal or ifthe isolates were stored for later testing. No difference in
the signal was observed between isolates fixed for 3 and10min. If fixed for 1min, the FISH signal was less thanwhen fixed for 3min, but was used to shorten the assay.Ethanol fixation was observed to produce a highersignal intensity, whereas methanol was observed toproduce a more consistent signal. Diluting isolates inabsolute (m)ethanol 1:1 and heating to 801C for 10mindid not improve the signal (27). For S. aureus,paraformaldehyde at 1% produced a weak signal (7,11).
Effect of Lysozyme and LysostaphinPermeabilization Treatments
As reported by Poppert et al. (1), when 2mg/ml lysozymeand 0.1mg/ml lysostaphin in 10mM Tris/HCl (pH 8) werecombined and applied in a one 5-min step at 461C, theFISH assay was simple and rapid for oligo-f probes. Thistreatment was further shortened to 3min by combining15mg/ml lysozyme with 0.1mg/ml lysostaphin in 10mMTris/HCl (pH 7) and incubating for 3min at 401C. Othervariations of lysozyme and lysostaphin permeabilizationwere tested with oligo-f probes. If lysozyme was appliedwithout lysostaphin, a 30-min incubation at 381C wasnecessary for STAAUR signal (21). If lysostaphinwas applied without lysozyme, a 10-min incubation at
TABLE 2. Comparison of the Staphylococcus aureus SI and CIfor One- and Two-Step Permeabilization FISH Methods Using
a STAAUR Oligo
Treatment SIa CIb
One-step FISH assay with oligo-fc 23.44 0.55
One-step FISH assay with oligo-f
and Tween 20s d24.85 0.71
One-step FISH assay with oligo-bc 17.19 0.19
Two-step FISH assay with oligo-bc 23.27 0.48
Two-step FISH assay with oligo-fe 27.31 0.45
SI, signal intensity; CI, confidence interval; FISH, fluorescence in situ
hybridization. Exposure time was the same for each image acquisition.
The results were consistent across the ten isolates tested.aMean signal intensity in 8-bit Gray-scale.bConfidence interval was calculated at 95%.cAs described in Table 1.dThe one-step FISH assay with a 5-min, 1% Tween 20s step at room
temperature before hybridization.eThe two-step FISH assay using a oligo-f, without the streptavidin
incubation step.
Fig. 1. Staphylococcus aureus treated with (A) the one-step permeabilization FISH assay or (B) the two-step permeabilization FISH assay and
then labeled with 1 mM/ml STAAUR oligo directly conjugated to Alexa Fluors 488. S. aureus treated with the two-step permeabilization FISH
assay and (C) not washed with PBS before lysostaphin, and (D) washed with PBS before lysostaphin and then labeled with 1 mM/ml oligo-b
STAAUR and 10 mg/ml streptavidin Alexa Fluors 488. (A) S. aureus treated with the one-step FISH assay. (B) S. aureus treated with the two-
step FISH assay. (C) S. aureus not washed with PBS before lysostaphin. (D) S. aureus washed with PBS before lysostaphin. PBS, phosphate-
buffered saline; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization.
362 Lawson et al.
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
62 Improvements to the existing FISH method
471C was sufficient for S. aureus, but the S. epidermidisEUB338 signal was poor. If oligo-b probes and streptavi-din-f was used, the one-step permeabilization treatmentproduced a weak signal (Table 2).To produce a satisfactory signal for oligo-b probes
and streptavidin-f, lysozyme and lysostaphin wereapplied separately. The sequence of the lysozyme andlysostaphin steps was found to be important. Asreported by Tavares et al. (2), lysozyme treatmentbefore lysostaphin produced a higher and more con-sistent signal than vice versa. Buffering of the enzymeswas also important. No difference was observed inSTAAUR signal if lysozyme was buffered at pH 7.0, 8.0,or left unbuffered. Lysostaphin when unbuffered,however, led to over-permeabilization and cell lysis.When lysostaphin buffered in Tris-HCl pH 7.0 or 8.0was applied, cell lysis was reduced but not completelyabrogated (Fig. 1C). Cell lysis, however was minimizedif a 1-min PBS wash step was added between thelysozyme and lysostaphin steps (Fig. 1D). The PBStreatment was further optimized by omitting the PBSwash step and instead diluting lysostaphin in PBS. Sincethe Tris–HCl buffering was not needed in the lysozymestep and lysostaphin was buffered with PBS, the assaypreparation was simplified. For the different permeabi-lization treatments tested, no differences were observedamong the ten isolates of each of the three bacteria(S. aureus, S. epidermidis, and E. coli).
Optimizing Hybridization
A surfactant step before hybridization was not necessary,however, a 1% (v/v) Tween 20s or 0.1% (v/v) TritonX-100swith 1% (w/v) bovine serum albumin inMQwaterspotted (10ml) onto the slides and incubated for 5min atroom temperature increased the signal intensity by 6%(Table 2). A number of different oligo and stain treatmentswere tested with the hybridization buffer. No differencewas observed in the signal if the oligos were tested atconcentrations of 0.25–3mM. Since it was easier to prepare,1mMwas chosen for further FISH testing. If Alexa Fluors
488 and Alexa Fluors 555 rather than FITC and Cy3fluorophores were used, photo-stability increased from10 sec to 1min with a 100-W Olympus U-RFL-T burner.The use of 50-ml tubes for hybridization incubationreduced drying out, reagent wastage, and reaction times.By using 30% (v/v) formamide for all the oligos tested inthis study, preparation was simpler and multiple oligoscould be applied at the same time.
Optimizing Specimen Washing and StreptavidinConjugation
The washing step could be substantially shortened ifthe NaCl concentration was increased from 0.3 to 0.9M.
A 1-min PBS wash step at room temperature was alsotested. This rapid and simple wash produced a highsignal intensity, but also some nonspecific staining. If thenonspecific signal was unacceptable with a PBS wash,the wash could be repeated with regular washing bufferuntil the nonspecific staining was removed withoutadversely affecting the FISH signal. When oligo-bprobes were used, an additional streptavidin-f incubationstep was needed. Its signal was highest when streptavi-din-f diluted in PBS was incubated at 381C for 10min.A number of measures were taken to counteract thenonspecific background signal associated with streptavi-din-f. NaCl concentration in the previous washing bufferwas increased from 0.3 to 0.9M and the washing timelengthened from 3 to 10min. Before applying, strepta-vidin-f was centrifuged at 10,000 rcf for 1min. Finally,the streptavidin concentration was minimized withoutlosing signal by diluting to a range of 1–10 mg/ml.
DISCUSSION
The study set out to optimize FISH for the detectionof S. aureus and differentiation from S. epidermidis.E. coli was also tested to ensure that the FISH assaysdeveloped would work for Gram-negative bacteria aswell. A merit of the study is that it addresses someaspects of the FISH procedure concerning fixation,permeablization, buffers and fluroescent dyes that werepreviously unquestioned. Although some of the studyexperiments did not result in major improvements to theassay, they may still be valuable for further studies,especially those that aim to optimize FISH.
Preparing Buffers
To test a range of FISH treatments, hybridization andwashing buffers were prepared beforehand and storedlong-term at �201C and mixed to their final formamideand NaCl concentrations just before use. It was relativelystraightforward to prepare large volumes of buffer andstore. As far as the authors are aware, this approach topreparing FISH buffers has not been reported elsewhereand is useful and applicable to routine diagnostics wherelabor costs are important. Since it was not necessary toprepare the reagents for each batch of FISH experiments,time-savings were made. Preparing and storing buffers forup to an year did not affect their application in the FISHassay or its signal. Hybridization buffer prepared witholigos could also be used for up to a week without signalloss or nonspecific binding (data not shown).
One-Step vs. Two-Step Permeabilization
The biotin–streptavidin system is rarely used inclinical FISH studies. The oligo-b assays are more
363Optimization of FISH for Staphylococcus aureus
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
fluorescent
3.2 Optimization of a two-step permeabilization fluorescence in situhybridization assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 63
involved and take longer than those that use oligo-f.Multiple oligo-b probes applied to the same specimenfor different microbes cannot be distinguished bystreptavidin-f as it binds to all of them. This can be amajor disadvantage since it is necessary in diagnosticFISH to combine the use of a species-specific probe witha eubacterial probe as an internal control. In addition,nonspecific background staining is higher when strepta-vidin-f is used. The study found, however that it ispossible to detect bacteria quickly with a relativelysimple oligo-b FISH assay. It was not possible to applyand distinguish between multiple oligo-b probes simul-taneously with streptavidin-f. As a simple work-around,the same specimen was spotted to more than one slidewell and a different oligo-b probe was applied to eachwell. The flip-side of this biotin–streptavidin systemlimitation is that only one streptavidin-f is required forvisualization and the cost of an oligo-b probe is about aquarter of its oligo-f counterpart. Nonspecific back-ground staining was controlled by more stringentwashes, and minimizing the amount of streptavidin-f.An unexpected outcome of the study was that the 1-hr
two-step FISH assay produced a higher signal intensitythan the one-step assay when oligo-f probes were used.This suggests that permeabilization is a key factor inhybridization. The time-to-result is 15min longer, but if theFISH signal is low or the background nonspecific signal ishigh, the two-step FISH assay might be a more practicalchoice.
Study Limitations
Cultures of clinical samples rather than clinical isolateswere tested. Reference strains and other frequentlyencountered microbes were not tested. Since it was difficultto control for the variation when comparing the FISHsignal intensity between treatments, representative imageswere used. Each treatment was repeated three times, animage was taken and if the variation between the threeimages was not significant, one image was chosen asrepresentative. The two-step FISH assay that was devel-oped could not be shortened to less than 1-hr without lossof S. epidermidis EUB338 signal. The optimized protocolslisted in Table 1 were a compromise to capture the variedresponses of the microbes tested. S. aureus produced ahigher and more consistent signal when treated withmethanol and lysostaphin, whereas S. epidermidis produceda higher and more consistent signal with ethanol andlysozyme.
CONCLUSION
The study found that a FISH assay that used alysozyme step followed by a PBS–lysostaphin step had ahigher STAAUR signal and could be applied almost as
rapidly as the FISH assay that combined lysozyme andlysostaphin into one-step. The two permeabilizationsteps lengthen the assay, but provided optimal condi-tions for lysozyme and lysostaphin enzyme activity,better control over the process of permeabilization aswell as a higher level of permeabilization. The two-stepassay might be used when the FISH signal is weak,bacterial numbers are low or if there is a need to useother reporter molecules such as catalyzed reporterdeposition (CARD)-FISH (26). Further testing of thefindings is warranted in a clinical scenario.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.Our thanks to the Australian Proteome Analysis Facilityfor laboratory facilities.
REFERENCES
1. Poppert S, Riecker M, Wellinghausen N, et al. Accelerated
identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures by a
modified fluorescence in situ hybridization procedure. J Med
Microbiol 2010;59:65–68.
2. Tavares A, Inacio J, MeloCristino J, et al. Use of fluorescence in
situ hybridization for rapid identification of staphylococci in blood
culture samples collected in a Portuguese hospital. J Clin
Microbiol 2008;46:3097–3100.
3. Oliveira K, Brecher SM, Durbin A, et al. Direct identification of
Staphylococcus aureus from positive blood culture bottles. J Clin
Microbiol 2003;41:889–891.
4. Kempf VA, Trebesius K, Autenrieth IB. Fluorescent in situ
hybridization allows rapid identification of microorganisms in
blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:830–838.
5. Peters RPH, Savelkoul PHM, SimoonsSmit AM, et al. Faster
identification of pathogens in positive blood cultures by fluores-
cence in situ hybridization in routine practice. J Clin Microbiol
2006;44:119–123.
6. Peters R, Agtmael MAV, SimoonsSmit AM, et al. Rapid
identification of pathogens in blood cultures with a modified
fluorescence in situ hybridization assay. J Clin Microbiol
2006;44:4186–4188.
7. Krimmer V, Merkert H, Eiff CV, et al. Detection of Staphylo-
coccus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis in clinical samples by
16S rRNAdirected in situ hybridization. J Clin Microbiol
1999;37:2667–2673.
8. Horvath A, Kristof K, KonkolyThege M, et al. Rapid identifica-
tion of pathogens in blood culture with fluorescent in situ
hybridization (FISH). Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung
2010;57:225–234.
9. Wang P. Simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylo-
coccus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ
hybridization. Med Princ Pract 2010;19:218–221.
10. Gescher DM, Kovacevic D, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence in
situ hybridisation (FISH) accelerates identification of gram-
positive cocci in positive blood cultures. Int J Antimicrob Agents
2008;32:51–59.
11. Jansen GJ, Mooibroek M, Idema J, et al. Rapid identification of
bacteria in blood cultures by using fluorescently labeled oligonu-
cleotide probes. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:814–817.
12. Trebesius K, Leitritz L, Adler K, et al. Culture independent and
rapid identification of bacterial pathogens in necrotising fasciitis
364 Lawson et al.
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
64 Improvements to the existing FISH method
and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome by fluorescence in situ
hybridisation. Med Microbiol Immunol 2000;188:
169–175.
13. Hogardt M, Trebesius K, Geiger AM, et al. Specific and rapid
detection by fluorescent in situ hybridization of bacteria in clinical
samples obtained from cystic fibrosis patients. J Clin Microbiol
2000;38:818–825.
14. Wu Q, Li Y, Wang M, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization
rapidly detects three different pathogenic bacteria in urinary tract
infection samples. J Microbiol Methods 2010;83:175–178.
15. Matsuhisa A, Saito Y, Ueyama H, et al. Detection of
staphylococci in mouse phagocytic cells by in situ hybridization
using biotinylated DNA probes. Biotech Histochem 1994;69:
31–37.
16. Shimada J, Hayashi I, Inamatsu T, et al. Clinical trial of insitu
hybridization method for the rapid diagnosis of sepsis. J Infect
Chemother 1999;5:21–31.
17. Kudo M, Matsuo Y, Nakasendo A, et al. Potential clinical benefit
of the in situ hybridization method for the diagnosis of sepsis.
J Infect Chemother 2009;15:23–26.
18. Thomas LC, Gidding HF, Ginn AN, et al. Development
of a realtime Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA (SAM�)
PCR for routine blood culture. J Microbiol Methods 2007;68:
296–302.
19. Baldrich E, Vigues N, Mas J, et al. Sensing bacteria but treating
them well: Determination of optimal incubation and storage
conditions. Anal Biochem 2008;383:68–75.
20. Cisani G, Varaldo PE, Grazi G, et al. High-level potentiation of
lysostaphin anti-staphylococcal activity by lysozyme. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 1982;21:531–535.
21. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, et al. Detection of
Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situ hybridization that
does not require lysostaphin. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:142–147.
22. Yan C, Ding B, Lan X, et al. The toxicity study on marine
lowtemperature lysozyme. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:604–609.
23. Yilmaz LS, Parnerkar S, Noguera DR. MathFISH, a web tool for
the in silico evaluation of oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence
in situ hybridization based on thermodynamic models. Appl
Environ Microbiol 2010;77:1118–1122.
24. Amann RI, Binder BJ, Olson RJ, et al. Combination of 16S
rRNAtargeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for
analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl Environ Microbiol
1990;56:1919–1925.
25. Daims H, Ramsing NB, Schleifer KH, et al. Cultivation-
independent, semiautomatic determination of absolute bacterial
cell numbers in environmental samples by fluorescence in situ
hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001;67:5810–5818.
26. Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R. Fluorescence in situ
hybridization and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identification
of marine bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002;68:
3094–3101.
27. Deere D, Vesey G, Milner M, et al. Rapid method for fluorescent
in situ ribosomal RNA labelling of Cryptosporidium parvum.
J Appl Microbiol 1998;85:807–818.
365Optimization of FISH for Staphylococcus aureus
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
3.2 Optimization of a two-step permeabilization fluorescence in situhybridization assay for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 65
Clin. Lab. 9+10/2011 789
Clin. Lab. 2011;57:789-794 ©Copyright
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Express Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Methods for the Detection of Staphylococcus Aureus
THOMAS S. LAWSON, RUSSELL E. CONNALLY, SUBRAMANYAM VEMULPAD, JAMES A. PIPER
Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
SUMMARY Background: As a proof-of-concept, the feasibility of detecting Staphylococcus aureus faster than previous whole-cell fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) methods was tested. Methods: Isolates of Staphylococcus were treated with three rapid slide-based FISH protocols and DNA probes. Protocols were shortened by optimizing, combining or omitting steps. Results: All FISH protocols detected S. aureus and not the phenotypically similar Staphylococcus epidermidis. The express FISH assay was completed in 24 minutes. The one-step FISH assay with NaCl and the one-step with phos-phate buffered saline (PBS) assay took 19 minutes, but yielded a weaker signal. Conclusions: The exploratory study identified S. aureus two to three times faster than previous methods. Addi-tional testing in a clinical laboratory scenario (for example with positive blood-culture bottles) is warranted. (Clin. Lab. 2011;57:789-794)
INTRODUCTION
Faster detection of S. aureus in clinical diagnostics is desirable (1-3). FISH is a reliable method for detecting S. aureus and its time-to-result has been shortened from 127 minues (4,5) and 581,3 minutes down to 45 minutes (2). Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) probes can further re-duce this time, but the cost is significant (Panagene) (6). FISH might be better utilized if its results were avail-able in a similar time-frame as Gram-staining (7). We believed that the conventional FISH assay could be fur-ther shortened if it was optimized. FISH typically uses lysostaphin to permeabilize S. aureus for DNA probe access (2,4,5). Other diagnostic assays have also used lysostaphin (8,9) and so we reasoned that lysostaphin might allow certain FISH steps to be combined or omit-ted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three FISH methods were tested and assessed against a method reported by Poppert et al. (2). Details not listed in Table 1 are as follows. To rectify a report of cell loss (5), 0.02 % (w/v) agarose (Bio-Rad, 162-0102) was
spotted to diagnostic glass slides and heat fixed at 80 oC (10,11). Ten clinical isolates of S. aureus and S. epidermidis were randomly collected from blood agar plates at a major hospital. Identity of the isolates was confirmed with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (12) and then deidentified for FISH. To allow up to 4 X dai-ly FISH experiments at a non-clinical location, isolates were cultured in nutrient broth (Oxoid, CM0001), ali-quoted, and then pelleted and stored for up to three months as described by Baldrich et al. (13). Before test-ing each FISH method three times, isolates were thawed and re-cultured in nutrient broth until turbid (70 min-utes, 0.5 McFarland) (13). As a control, isolates were tested directly from agar plates with no difference in re-sults. To minimize reaction time, reagents and slides were held in preheated 50 mL centrifuge tubes with screw-caps (Greiner, 210-261). A DNA probe specific for S. aureus (Invitrogen, Staaur 16S69: 5'- GAAG-CAAGCTTCTCGTCCG -3’) and a eubacteria probe EUB338 both conjugated at the 5' end to Alexa Fluor® 488 (Invitrogen) were applied. A representational image (24-bit-RGB TIFF) of each FISH method was acquired (Olympus, BX51) and ana-_____________________________________________ Short Communication accepted April 29, 2011
66 Improvements to the existing FISH method
3.3 Express fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for the detection of
Staphylococcus aureus
T. S. LAWSON et al.
Clin. Lab. 9+10/2011
790
Table 1. Express, one-step and one-step with PBS FISH methods.
Express FISH One-step One-step with PBS
Preparation: Isolates were cultured in nutrient broth until turbid, spotted (1 minute), fixed to slides at 80 oC (3 min-utes), methanol fixed (1 minute), and air-dried (1 minute)
Preparation: Same as the express FISH assay
Preparation: Same as the express FISH assay
Permeabilization: Slides were spotted (1 minute) with lysis reagent (15 mg/mL lysozyme, 100 µg/mL lysostaphin, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.0) and incubated at 40 oC (4 minutes), rinsed with methanol, and air-dried (1 minute)
No permeabilization step No permeabilization step
Hybridization: Slides were spotted with buffer [20 % formamide (v/v), 0.9 mol/L NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 0.02 % (v/v) SDS, 2 µM probe, 0.5 µg/mL DAPI, and Milli-Q water] (1 minute), and in-cubated at 47 oC (8 minutes)
Hybridization: Slides were spotted with buffer [100 µg/mL lysostaphin, 1.2 mol/L NaCl, 0.02 % SDS, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.0, 2 µM probe, 0.5 µg/mL DAPI, Milli-Q water], and incubated at 47 oC (10 minutes)
Hybridization: Slides were spotted with buffer [100 µg/mL lysostaphin, 8XPBS (Sigma, P4417) buffer, 1 % (v/v) Tween 20, 2 µM probe, 0.5 µg/mL DAPI, and Milli-Q water] (1 minute), and incubated at 47 oC (10 minutes)
Washing: Slides were incubated with washing buffer [0.318 mol/L NaCl, 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 0.01 % SDS, 10 mM EDTA, and Milli-Q water] at 47 oC (1 minute), and rinsed with PBS (1 min-ute)
Washing: Slides were rinsed with PBS (1 minute)
Washing: Slides were rinsed with PBS (1 minute)
Total time: 24 minutes Total time: 19 minutes Total time: 19 minutes lyzed with ImageJ (NIH, v1.43u). Three image attri-butes were compared: the signal intensity, the size of the cell with FISH staining and the ratio of cells with FISH signal. To measure signal intensity, an image mask was created to delineate the cells for analysis. Threshold levels were set automatically for the control FISH image and kept constant for the other images. To measure the size of individual cells stained with FISH, the diameter of representative cells was measured and the area calculated. To measure the ratio of cells with FISH signal to those without, the FISH mask was inverted, formatted to a red channel (24-bit, RGB), and merged with a blue DAPI (Sigma, D9564) channel image, and the differences measured. Parametric assumptions were tested with a histogram of the signal and a p value of <0.05 was con-sidered significant. The mean signal intensity gray-scale, standard deviation and a 95 % confidence interval for each FISH method image were calculated (Table 2). Summary statistics were compared with one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS
The control (2) and express FISH methods had similar signal intensity, PBS FISH was weaker, and the one-step signal weaker again (Table 2). Image analysis was confirmed by observation (Figure 1). A one-way ANO-VA of the mean signal intensity between methods was found to be significantly different (p <0.000). If agarose was not added to the slides, signal variance increased but its intensity did not change. A further control where molten 0.4 % (w/v) agarose and the broth culture of the isolates was diluted 1:1 and applied to slides (data not shown) (11) confirmed this result. No difference was observed in the diameter of cells with FISH signal. For the ratio of cells labeled with FISH, there were minor discrepancies, but these were attributed to the threshold setting filtering out cells outside the focal-plane with FISH signal and not those with DAPI signal. For all methods, no cross-reactivity was observed; S. aureus was positive for the Staaur probe and S. epidermidis was not. With the one-step and PBS FISH methods, however the S. epidermidis EUB338 signal was insuffi-cient.
3.3 Express fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for thedetection of Staphylococcus aureus 67
EXPRESS DETECTION OF S. AUREUS WITH FISH
Clin. Lab. 9+10/2011
791
Table 2. Comparison of the signal intensity for the three FISH protocols and a control FISH assay2. FISH methods are listed in Table 1.
FISH assay Signal Intensity
Meana ± CIb
Control FISH2 43.9 0.9
Express FISHc 44.2 0.7
Express FISH without agarosed 44.8 3.7
One-step FISHe 37.7 1.0
One-step with PBS FISHf 41.4 0.7 ‘a’ Mean signal intensity was measured in 8-bit Gray-scale. ‘b’ Confidence interval was calculated at 95 % ‘c’ A 2 minute permeabilization step, 2 mg/mL lysozyme and 0.02 mg/mL lysostaphin treatment was sufficient for S. aureus and Staaur, but not for S. epidermidis and the EUB338 probe ‘d’ As a control no agarose was added to the slide before FISH ‘e’ Buffer with 0.9 mol/L NaCl was optimal for EUB338 but not for the Staaur probe ‘f’ Over-permeabilized if not treated with Tween 20 or a methanol bath
A)
68 Improvements to the existing FISH method
T. S. LAWSON et al.
Clin. Lab. 9+10/2011
792
B)
C)
Figure 1. S. aureus labeled with the Staaur probe conjugated to Alexa Fluor® 488 after express (a), one-step (b) and one-step PBS FISH (c). Exposure time was kept constant and there was no processing after acquisition. Bar is 10 µM.
3.3 Express fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for thedetection of Staphylococcus aureus 69
EXPRESS DETECTION OF S. AUREUS WITH FISH
Clin. Lab. 9+10/2011
793
DISCUSSION
The proof-of-concept study set out to test the feasibility of shortening the conventional FISH assay (1-3). The differences observed in FISH staining between methods was found to be attributed to signal intensity and not to the size of the cells or the ratio of cells stained with FISH (Figure 1). The results suggest that a 24 minute express FISH assay can identify S. aureus without com-promising the signal. By permeabilizing with only lyso-staphin, the specificity of the one-step and PBS FISH methods increased and the washing step became unnec-essary, but the signal was reduced. The weaker signal might be due to the limitation of using one instead of two lytic enzymes. Possibly PBS performed better than one-step FISH as its conditions are optimal for lyso-staphin activity (14). To develop the three FISH methods, Poppert et al. (2) was taken as a starting point. We considered that opti-mizing the conditions for each FISH step might reduce its overall length. The express FISH assay is listed in Table 1. For the preparation step, air-drying time was shortened to 3 minutes by placing slides on an 80 oC heat-block and methanol fixation was reduced without signal loss to one minute. For the permeabilization step, S. aureus took 2 minutes, but S. epidermidis required 4 minutes with 15 mg/mL (15) or 600 U/G lysozyme (Sigma, L6876) and 0.1 mg/mL (5,15) or 0.3 U/G lyso-staphin (Sigma, L9043) at pH 7.0 (14,16,17) and 40 oC (14,17). For the hybridization step, incubation was shortened to 8 minutes without signal loss and DAPI was added to avoid a separate counter-staining step. For the washing step, we found that washing could be short-ened to one minute by increasing NaCl stringency until no signal was observed with S. epidermidis. As a result, the express FISH assay turnaround-time was reduced from 45 (2) to 24 minutes. We then tested if combining and omitting FISH steps to reduce the time further was feasible. The one-step FISH assay is listed in Table 1. The preparation step was the same as express FISH. For the combined permeabilization and hybridization buffer, we were unable to add lysozyme at a NaCl concentra-tion above 0.1 mol/L or lysostaphin at a formamide (Applichem, A2156) concentration above 15 % (16). So only lysostaphin was added to the formamide-free buf-fer and tested at increments of 0.15 mol/L NaCl from 0.0 to 1.8 mol/L and found it to be optimal at 1.2 mol/L for the Staaur probe. Total turnaround-time was cut from 24 to 19 minutes but the signal was weaker. We recognized that PBS (Sigma, P4417) might provide ideal conditions for lysostaphin (14) and thought that using PBS buffer could overcome the weaker signal observed with one-step FISH. The one-step PBS FISH assay is listed in Table 1. For the buffer, an equivalent ionic concentration of PBS replaced NaCl, Tris-HCl was unnecessary and Tween 20® replaced SDS as it reduced over-permeabilization. As before, the washing step was omitted. The resulting signal was an improve-
ment over the one-step FISH (Table 2). Assay time for the one-step PBS FISH remained at 19 minutes. The results have a number of limitations. Blood culture bottles, S. aureus reference strains, and other microbes were not tested (3,5). Pretreating slides with agarose was helpful, but not necessary. For comparison lyso-zyme and lysostaphin was set at 15 mg/mL and 0.1 mg/ mL, respectively, but was not optimal for every method (15). As both FISH probes were conjugated to the same fluorophore, they could not be applied simultaneously (5). For image analysis, some cells were measured out-side the focal plane, a single representative image rather than multiple images was analyzed, and minor DAPI bleeding was observed. To conclude, shorter assay times are desirable, but longer hybridization times may still be necessary for reliable detection when patients are pretreated with antibiotics and pathogen rRNA is low (4). The findings warrant testing the applicability of these methods in a clinical laboratory scenario. Acknowledgment: The study was funded by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects (LP0775196). Declaration of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest for the authors. References: 1. Peters RP, Agtmael MAV, Simoons-Smit AM, Danner SA, Van-
denbroucke-Grauls CM, Savelkoul PH. Rapid identification of pathogens in blood cultures with a modified fluorescence in situ hybridization assay. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2006;44: 4186-8.
2. Poppert S, Riecker M, Wellinghausen N, Frickmann H, Essig A.
Accelerated identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures by a modified fluorescence in situ hybridization proce-dure. Journal of Medical Microbiology 2010;59:65-8.
3. Horvath A, Kristof K, Konkoly-Thege M, Nagy K. Rapid identi-
fication of pathogens in blood culture with fluorescent in situ hy-bridization (FISH). Acta Microbiologica et Immunologica Hun-garica 2010;57:225-34.
4. Gescher DM, Kovacevic D, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence in
situ hybridisation (FISH) accelerates identification of gram-posi-tive cocci in positive blood cultures. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2008;32 Suppl 1:51-9.
5. Wang P. Simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylo-
coccus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybrid-ization. Medical Principles and Practice 2010;19:218-21.
6. Hermsen ED, Shull SS, Klepser DG, et al. Pharmacoeconomic
analysis of microbiologic techniques for differentiating staphylo-cocci directly from blood culture bottles. Journal of Clinical Mi-crobiology 2008;46:2924-9.
7. Munson EL, Diekema DJ, Beekmann SE, Chapin KC, Doern GV.
Detection and treatment of bloodstream infection: laboratory re-porting and antimicrobial management. Journal of Clinical Mi-crobiology 2003;41:495-7.
70 Improvements to the existing FISH method
T. S. LAWSON et al.
Clin. Lab. 9+10/2011
794
8. Geary C, Stevens M. Rapid lysostaphin test to differentiate staphylococcus and micrococcus species. Journal of Clinical Mi-crobiology 1986;23:1044-5.
9. Tuncan EU, Martin SE. Lysostaphin lysis procedure for detection
of Staphylococcus aureus by the firefly bioluminescent ATP method. Applied and Environmental Micro-biology 1987;53:88-91.
10. Daims H, Ramsing NB, Schleifer KH, Wagner M. Cultivation-
independent, semiautomatic determination of absolute bacterial cell numbers in environmental samples by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Applied and environmental microbiology 2001;67: 5810-8.
11. Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R. Fluorescence in situ hy-
bridization and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identification of marine bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2002;68:3094-101.
12. Thomas LC, Gidding HF, Ginn AN, Olma T, Iredell J. Develop-
ment of a real-time Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA (SAM-) PCR for routine blood culture. Journal of microbiological methods 2007;68:296-302.
13. Baldrich E, Vigues N, Mas J, Munoz FX. Sensing bacteria but
treating them well: Determination of optimal incubation and stor-age conditions. Analytical Biochemistry 2008; 383:68-75.
14. Schindler CA, Schuhardt VT. Purification and properties of lyso-staphin – A lytic agent for Staphylococcus aureus. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1965;97:242-50.
15. Cisani G, Varaldo PE, Grazi G, Soro O. High-level potentiation
of lysostaphin anti-staphylococcal activity by lysozyme. Antimi-crobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1982;21: 531-5.
16. Davies RC, Neuberger A, Wilson BM. The dependence of lyso-
zyme activity on pH and ionic strength. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1969;178:294-305.
17. Szweda P, Kotlowski R, Kur J. New effective sources of the
staphylococcus simulans lysostaphin. Journal of Biotechnology 2005;117:203-13.
Correspondence: Thomas S. Lawson Faculty of Science, Macquarie University Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia Tel.: +61 2 9850-8938 Fax: +61 2 9850 8115. E-mail: tomxlawson@gmail.com
3.3 Express fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for thedetection of Staphylococcus aureus 71
72 Improvements to the existing FISH method
Improvements to the existing FISH method: a summary
The findings reported in this Chapter are as follows:
1. The number of FISH probes that could potentially identify SA was doubled (1).
2. The newly identified probes were found to have characteristics that were superior
to the established probes (1).
3. Reagent preparation for FISH was improved (2). Reagents were formulated be-
forehand and stored long-term so that, just before commencing the procedure for
FISH, they could then be mixed rapidly to their final concentration(2).
4. Permeabilization of SA for the access of high-molecular weight probes was opti-
mized (2).
5. SA was sufficiently permeabilized so that FISH could be performed in one hour,
but without the loss of its cell integrity (2).
6. Turnaround time for the FISH assay was shortened from the previous fastest time
of 45 minutes (32) to 24 minutes (3). This suggests that it might be possible to
detect SA within half an hour of a blood culture becoming positive (3).
There were limitations to these findings. The FISH methods tested (52, 32, 40)
relied on lysostaphin to permeabilize SA. Lysostaphin is an enzyme that is effective
at permeabilizing SA (147), but can be costly and can complicate the preparation
and performance of the FISH assay (95). The FISH methods that were tested also
used formamide, a standard denaturing reagent for the hybridization of FISH probes
(45). Formamide, however is toxic to use and disposal can be difficult (144). The
FISH methods also relied on an incubator and a water-bath to offer the conditions
necessary for the hybridization and washing of the probes which, because they are
usually dedicated to the FISH assay, are an extra cost and take up bench-space when
not used.
The concerns raised here are addressed in Chapter 4. It reports on the feasibility
of permeabilizing SA for DNA probes with lysozyme alone (4), instead of with both
3.3 Express fluorescence in situ hybridization methods for thedetection of Staphylococcus aureus 73
lysozyme and lysostaphin (52). Lysozyme is an inexpensive enzyme (141) commonly
used to permeabilize most Gram-positive bacteria in FISH (64). The replacement
of formamide with non-toxic urea is also described (5). Finally, the replacement of
an incubator and water-bath with a hot-plate whose temperature can be precisely
controlled is reported.
74 Improvements to the existing FISH method
4Development of new FISH methods
This Chapter recounts an investigation into the re-engineering of the FISH assay for
the identification of S. aureus (SA). The feasibility of detecting SA with FISH that
was not first permeabilized with lysostaphin is reported (4). The Chapter then reports
on the feasibility of performing a FISH assay without formamide, an incubator or a
water-bath (5).
The Chapter comprises of two sections. Each of these sections were published in
a peer reviewed journal and included as such. In the first, SA is detected with a
DNA-based FISH assay that permeabilizes with lysozyme alone: Lawson TS, Connally
RE, Iredell JR, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a
fluorescence in situ hybridization that does not require lysostaphin. J Clin Lab Anal
2011;25:142-147 (4). In the second, SA is detected with an urea-NaCl based FISH
assay that uses a hot-plate with a precise temperature control for the incubation steps:
Lawson T, Connally R, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl
fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus. Lett Appl
Microbiol 2012;10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03197.x:(in press) (5).
75
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis 25 : 142–147 (2011)
Detection of Staphylococcus aureus With a Fluorescence In SituHybridization That Does Not Require Lysostaphin
Thomas S. Lawson,1,2� Russell E. Connally,1 Jonathan R. Iredell,2 Subramanyam Vemulpad,1
and James A. Piper3
1Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia2Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3Department of Physics, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia
To detect with whole-cell fluorescence insitu hybridization (FISH), Staphylococcusaureus is typically permeabilized with lyo-zyme and lysostaphin. We tested whether itwas feasible to detect S. aureus anddifferentiate it from Staphylococcus epider-midis with lysozyme-only permeabilization.We compared lysozyme permeabilization
to S. aureus permeabilized with lysozymein combination with lysostaphin. It wasdetermined that S. aureus treated withagarose, methanol, and lysozyme couldbe detected with FISH. The 1 hr protocolis a useful alternative to conventionalFISH. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 25:142–147,2011. r 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Key words: early diagnosis; fluorescent in situ hybridization; gram-positive bacteria;molecular diagnostic; Staphylococcus aureus; lysostaphin; lysozyme;techniques
INTRODUCTION
Slide-based fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)is a reliable method for detecting pathogenic Staphylo-coccus aureus and distinguishing it from the relativelybenign Staphylococcus epidermidis (1–3). If DNA ratherthan the costly Peptide Nucleic Acid probes (Panagene)are applied, permeabilization is necessary to ensure accessof probes to in situ ribosomal RNA (rRNA) (4,5).Usually, permeabilization is conducted with the enzymeslysozyme (Sigma, L6876; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO)and lysostaphin (Sigma, L4402), either mixed together(6,7) or in two steps (2,8). Other permeabilizationtreatments, such as hydrochloric acid (9), nisin (10),proteinase K (9), staphylolysin (11) or Triton X–100 (12)are only sometimes adopted (2,3,5,6,13).Permeabilization can complicate the application of
FISH in routine laboratory diagnostics, as it has to beconducted precisely (2). Underpermeabilization canresult in a low FISH signal and overpermeabilizationin lysis and cell loss (4). A simplification of this stepleading to more consistent outcomes is desirable.Lysozyme applied on its own for the detection ofS. aureus was previously reported, but the assaysdescribed took a number of hours (14,15). We report
here the efficacy of applying a single enzyme (lysozyme)instead of two, to rapidly detect S. aureus with FISH.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Preparation
To reduce cell loss (16), an agarose (Bio–Rad, 162–0102; Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA) bed was applied todiagnostic glass slides (Menzel–Glaser, X1XER308B;Menzel Glaser, Braunschweig, DE). The bed wasprepared by adding 0.02% (w/v) agarose and 0.01%(w/v) sodium azide (Sigma, S2002) to Milli-Q waters
(MQ) (Millipore, Billerica, MA) and dissolving it byheating without boiling in a microwave oven. The agarosedilute was spotted 10ml to each slide well and dried on an801C hotplate. Blood agar plates of clinical isolates
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI 10.1002/jcla.20448
Received 16 November 2010; Accepted 14 January 2011
Grant sponsor: Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects; Grant
number: LP0775196.
�Correspondence to: Thomas S. Lawson, Department of Physics,
Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia.
E-mail: tomxlawson@gmail.com
�c 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
76 Development of new FISH methods
4.1 Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situ hybridization
that does not require lysostaphin
positive for S. aureus and S. epidermidis were randomlycollected from a major hospital. Isolate identity wasconfirmed via polymerase chain reaction (17). For safehandling, the first ten isolates of S. aureus negative forthe mecA gene and the first ten isolates identified asS. epidermidis were selected for further testing. Isolateswere deidentified at collection and labeled numerically toensure their identity was blinded when assessed. Isolateswere cultured in 50ml sterilized tubes of nutrient broth(Oxoid, CM0001; Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) and incubatedat 371C with a gentle rotation until turbid. Broth dilutionsfor blood cultures were used, as it allowed shortenedincubation times of 1–2hr from frozen isolates as opposedto day or overnight incubations. To enhance probe signaland further reduce cell loss, prewarmed 0.4% (w/v)agarose and the broth culture of the isolates was diluted1:1 (16). The agarose–isolate dilute was then spotted 10mlto each slide well and fixed with an 801C hotplate until dry.
Permeabilization
To further fix and partially permeabilize the isolates,the slides were washed in 50ml sterile tubes of absolutemethanol for 3min (6). Slides were removed and driedon a hotplate. The slides were cooled and 10 ml of freshlyprepared 15mg/ml lysozyme (18) in unbuffered MQwater (12,19,20) was pipetted to each well. Typically,lysozyme is buffered with Tris–HCl at pH 8.0(2,3,5,6,13), but for simplicity and to attain a moreintense signal (21), we followed reports where bufferingwas omitted (12,19,20). Slides were fitted in 50ml tubesto prevent evaporation and then placed in a 371C (21)incubator for 30min (12). The lysozyme action wasstopped by immersion in absolute methanol for 1minand then dried on a hotplate (6).The isolates were also permeabilized with a lysozyme–
lysostaphin mixture. The protocol was identical to thelysozyme-only treatment, but with the following modi-fications. Lysostaphin (Sigma, L4402) at 100 mg/ml(3) was added to the lysozyme in MQ water (19) and
incubated at 401C (21,22) for 3 (6) instead of 30min.As a control, lysozyme–lysostaphin was kept unbuf-fered, but we observed cell morphology was betterpreserved if it was buffered at pH 8.0 (2,3,5,6,13).As before, slides were immersed for 1min in absolutemethanol (6).Additional tests were performed to compare the
quality and applicability of other reagents. Fixativesand permeabilizers were selected on the basis of previousreports and the signal intensity, cells stained with FISH,cell loss after FISH, time taken for the assay, and costswere compared (Table 1), for different permeabilizationtreatments. The lysozyme and lysostaphin and lysozyme-only treatments are already described. The treatmentwith lysostaphin excluded lysozyme (23). The treatmentwithout agarose excluded agarose spotting to the slides oragarose in dilution with the isolates (16). The treatmentwith lysozyme after ethanol replaced the methanolfixation step with absolute ethanol (2). The proteinaseK treatment replaced the 30min lysozyme step with10min incubation in 1mg/ml proteinase K (P4850,Sigma) at 401C, a methanol rinse for inactivation, and10min incubation with 1mg/ml lysozyme at 401C. Thelysozyme after HCl acid treatment was the same as theproteinase K treatment, except proteinase K was replacedwith 1M HCL at 371C (24). The treatment with Tween20 (P7949, Sigma) after lysozyme added a 5min incuba-tion step at room temperature with Tween followed bya water rinse. The treatment with Triton X–100 (T8787,Sigma) after lysozyme (12) was the same as Tween, expectwith Triton. The no permeabilization treatment omittedthe personalization step. If not listed, other FISH stepswere the same as the lysozyme-only treatment.
FISH
A hybridization buffer was prepared with 0.9M NaCl(Sigma, S6191), 20mM Tris–HCl (Sigma, T1503,T3253), and 0.02% (w/v) SDS (Sigma, L4390) in MQwater (25). Either 15% (v/v) deionized formamide
TABLE 1. Comparison of Different S. aureus Permeabilization Treatments Concerning Quality and Robustness
Permeabilization treatment Signal intensity Cells stained Cell adhesion Time (min) Cost ($)
Lysozyme and lysostaphin 1111 1111 111 7 10
Lysostaphin 1111 111 111 7 9
Lysozyme 1111 1111 111 34 5
Lysozyme without agarose 11 11 11 33 5
Lysozyme after ethanol 11111 111 111 34 5
Lysozyme without alcohol fixation 111 11 111 31 5
Lysozyme after proteinase K 1111 1111 1 21 6
Lysozyme after HCl acid – – 11 21 5
Tween 20 after lysozyme 11111 1111 111 39 5
Triton X-100 after lysozyme 1111 1111 111 39 5
No permeabilization 1 1 111 4 4
143S. aureus Detection With Lysozyme FISH
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
4.1 Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situhybridization that does not require lysostaphin 77
(Applichem, A2156; Applichem, Darmstadt, DE) and2 mM of Sau probe (Sau 16S69: 50-GAAGCAAGC-TTCTCGTCCG-30) specific for S. aureus or 30% (v/v)formamide and 2mM of EUB338 probe (EUB338 16S337:50-GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT-30) specific for bacteriawas added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Both oligonucleo-tide (DNA) probes were conjugated to the flurophoreAlexa Fluors 488 (Invitrogen). The buffer was spotted10ml to each well and the slides were fitted in 50ml tubesand placed in a 471C incubator for 20min.After hybridization, slides were immediately fitted in
50ml tubes of prewarmed washing buffer containing5mM EDTA (Sigma, EDS), 0.64M NaCl, 20mMTris–HCl, and 0.02% (w/v) SDS in MQ water (25).Tubes were then placed in a 471C water bath for3min (6). Washing action was stopped by rinsing ina 50ml tube of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Sigma,P4417) at room temperature and followed by dryingwith pressurized air (6). If required, isolates werecounterstained with 15 ml of 1 mg/ml DAPI for 1minand then rinsed with PBS (16). Cells were visualized witha fluorescence microscope (Olympus, BX51; Olympus,Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a fluorescein filter.Different permeabilization treatments are listed in
Table 1. The ratios are indicated by ‘‘1111’’ for all,‘‘111’’ for three quarters, ‘‘11’’ for half, and ‘‘1’’ fora quarter or less. A negative result is indicated by ‘‘–’’.The signal intensity (1) was measured relative to thelysozyme and lysostaphin FISH treatment. Cells stained(1) with FISH was measured from the ratio of cells withFISH to DAPI (Sigma, D9564) signal. Cell adhesion (1)was measured from the ratio of cells remaining afterFISH to cells observed with DAPI before FISH. Time(Min) taken for each treatment included the sum of theagarose, fixation, and permeabilization steps. The cost($) was rounded to the nearest dollar for a daily run offour FISH experiments, each with two slides (Sigma,USD). All treatments were adjusted so that cell lysis was
minimal. The treatment was repeated in its final formthree times. For each experimental variable, two wellswere tested and three fields of view with an objective ofX60 were assessed. Two independent, blinded observersanalyzed the images. Slight variation was observedbetween slide wells, but not between experimental runs.
RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes the results of different treatmentsin terms of quality and robustness. Both lysozyme-onlyand lysozyme–lysostaphin permeabilization detectedS. aureus and differentiated it from S. epidermidis withthe Sau probe. For the initial tests, all enzymes were leftunbuffered. Lysozyme–lysostaphin had a brighter signalthan lysozyme-only treated S. aureus. However, thelysozyme–lysostaphin left cells overpermeabilized andlysed. Once a buffer at pH 8.0 was added, the lysis wascontrolled, and S. aureus treated for 3min withlysozyme–lysostaphin, which had a result equivalent tothat of a 30min lysozyme-only treatment. Figure 1illustrates the ability to detect S. aureus with the Sauprobe for both treatments. In addition, no cross-reactivity was noted for the Sau probe; it was positivefor S. aureus and negative for the S. epidermidis isolates.Likewise, both treatments detected S. aureus andS. epidermidis with the universal EUB338 probe.We could not obtain a signal rapidly with lysozyme
alone unless the S. aureus isolates were diluted inagarose. This lengthened the assay, but it was only aslight encumbrance as the step was performed in 1min.Agarose doubled the signal intensity, the ratio of cellswith signal, and increased cell adhesion. Without theagarose dilution, similar signal intensity was realizedif the cells were hybridized for 70 instead of 20min.We tested cell loss of isolates in agarose spotted to slidesprepared and unprepared with an agarose bed. Weobserved that agarose spotted slides further reduced cell
Fig. 1. S. aureus permeabilized with lysozyme (A), and S. aureus permeabilized with lysozyme–lysostaphin (B). S. aureus were labeled with the
Sau probe conjugated to the fluorophore Alexa Fluors 488. Bar is 10mm. (A) S. aureus permeabilized with lysozyme. (B) S. aureus permeabilized
with lysozyme and lysostaphin.
144 Lawson et al.
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
fluorophorefluorophorefluorophorefluorophore
78 Development of new FISH methods
loss. This might be an advantage if the number of targetcells is low. As the bed can be applied before a FISHprocedure, its preparation does not complicate orlengthen FISH.A number of different fixation procedures were tested
(Table 1). Applying 100% methanol to the slides wasobserved to be the most effective and rapid fixation (6).Ethanol fixation of slides produced a brighter signal, butwas less consistent than with methanol. Omitting thealcohol fixation step reduced both signal intensity andconsistency. Tween 20 enhanced the signal, but itinvolved an additional assay step. Yet, when we testedlysozyme diluted with Tween, the signal did not differfrom lysozyme-only permeabilization. In contradictionto previous reports (12), we saw no improvement withTriton X–100. Permeabilization with hydrochloric acidproduced poor results; it seemed to inhibit the action ofthe conjugated probe itself.As a control, FISH was performed with the permea-
bilization step omitted. Less than one quarter of theS. aureus cells had sufficient signal. As a further control,FISH was performed with only lysostaphin (19). Highsignal strength was observed, but the signal was lessconsistent than that of S. aureus treated with lysozyme–lysostaphin or the proposed lysozyme-only method.Isolates were tested directly from blood agar plates withlysozyme-only and in combination with lysostaphin.The results were consistent with tests of S. aureuscultured in nutrient broth. Poor results were obtainedwith lysozyme-only permeabilization if agarose wasomitted. Preliminary testing (data not shown) witha healthcare-associated meticillin-resistant S. aureus,(HA)–MRSA isolate and a community-associated(CA)–MRSA isolate, was comparable to the mecA-negative isolates (26).Lysoyme and lysostaphin are commonly applied at a
pH of 8.0 (2,3,5,6,13). Buffering at pH 8.0 was found toreduce the loss of cell morphology with lysostaphin.However, we observed that lysozyme-only assay pro-duced poor results unless the pH was reduced to 7.0. Thelysozyme-only assay was tested and found to be effectivewithout buffering, and so for simplicity, Tris-HCl bufferwas omitted from the final tests. We experienced somedifficulty applying Proteinase K. The precise concen-tration, incubation temperature, and time necessaryfor permeabilization but not overlysis was difficult tomanage. Washing with 100% methanol reduced over-permeabilization, but an agarose bed and dilution inagarose did not stop the loss of up to half the cells.To minimize thickness and visual aberration, we
tested the lowest concentration of agarose necessary tomaintain cell adhesion and signal intensity (27). Wefound that an agarose concentration of 0.02% (w/v) wassufficient for the slide bed and 0.2% sufficient for the
isolate dilution. For simplicity, we diluted 0.4% (w/v)agarose 1:1 with the isolates. This may, however, have anegative effect on the assay’s sensitivity if microbenumbers are low. To reduce overdilution of cells, wetrialled one part agarose at 0.8% to three parts ofnutrient broth with isolates, without signal loss. Anadditional benefit of agarose was that the probe concen-tration could be reduced by a factor of five without lossof signal. Initially, experiments were performed at 5 mMprobe concentrations, but after the addition of agarose,this was reduced to 1 mM. As a safety margin, the finalexperiments were performed at 2 mM.
DISCUSSION
We set out to validate whether lysostaphin wasnecessary for detecting S. aureus with FISH. Wedemonstrated that S. aureus can be successfully permea-bilized rapidly without lysostaphin. The ability oflysozyme-only to permeabilize S. aureus is likely owingto how the isolates were prepared after culturing andhow they were fixed and permeabilized. Isolates werediluted in agarose to enhance signal intensity (16,27);fixed in mid-log phase when rRNA numbers were high(1,13); permeabilized by heat, methanol (6) and lyso-zyme (12); treated with a relatively high concentration ofunbuffered lysozyme (12,18–20); and finally incubatedfor an extended period of time (12) at an optimaltemperature for lytic activity (21).There were some drawbacks to using an agarose bed
and an agarose isolate dilution. For agarose stockdilution to mix properly with isolates in nutrient buffer,it needed to be prewarmed. When viewed with afluorescence microscope, the agarose did create visualaberrations and thickening of the specimen. To see allthe cells in focus, it was necessary to adjust the micro-scope stage Z-axis up and down while viewing. Figure 1illustrates FISH-labeled S. aureus inside and outside thefocal plane. However, these encumbrances were offsetby the doubling in signal intensity and cell adhesion.Rapid and effective FISH with only lysozyme waspossible with this signal enhancement. When usingbacteria from pure culture, cell loss was not a problem.However, it was felt that this study would have a widerutility if this parameter was optimized as well.Handling of lysostaphin was not straightforward.
Minute amounts were involved (28) and upon weighing,the lyophilized powder (Sigma, L4402) readily absorbedmoisture from the atmosphere, making exact measure-ment difficult. When diluted in water, its decline inactivity was noticeable after 1 week. We saw somevariation in S. aureus strain response to lysostaphin.These variables made the titration of lysostaphinnecessary before each experiment to ensure that isolates
145S. aureus Detection With Lysozyme FISH
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
4.1 Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situhybridization that does not require lysostaphin 79
were permeabilized optimally. Furthermore, lysostaphinwas approximately 40 times more expensive byvolume spotted than lysozyme (Sigma, L6876, L4402).In contrast, if only lysozyme was applied, the permeabi-lization step was more robust, less sensitive to variationin bacteria strains, less likely to overpermeabilize, andtitration was unnecessary. Dilutions can be stored at 41Cfor 2 months before activity loss was noticeable. Theweighing was relatively simple and did not requirea microbalance scale housed in a draft-free enclosure.If preparation mistakes are made, the enzyme wasreformulated quickly and without significant expense.A limitation of the lysozyme-only FISH protocol was
its turnaround time. At 1 hr, it was twice as long asthe fastest reported lysozyme–lysostaphin protocol (6).However, this was still half the time of other presump-tive tests for S. aureus (29,30). In conclusion, this studydetected and differentiated S. aureus from S. epidermidiswith a 1 hr FISH method that did not require lyso-staphin. The procedure worked with Staphylococcitaken directly from agar plates (data not shown), butfurther testing is required to assess the sensitivity andspecificity of this practical method on blood cultures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Australian Proteome AnalysisFacility and to Associate Professor Robert Willows atMacquarie University.
REFERENCES
1. Krimmer V, Merkert H, Eiff CV, et al. Detection of Staphylo-
coccus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis in clinical samples
by 16S rRNA-directed in situ hybridization. J Clin Microbiol
1999;37:2667–2673.
2. Tavares A, Inacio J, Melo-Cristino J, Couto I. Use of fluorescence
in situ hybridization for rapid identification of staphylococci in
blood culture samples collected in a Portuguese hospital. J Clin
Microbiol 2008;46:3097–3100.
3. Wang P. Simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylo-
coccus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ
hybridization. Med Princ Pract 2010;19:218–221.
4. Nistico L, Gieseke A, Stoodley P, Hall-Stoodley L, Kerschner JE,
Ehrlich GD. Fluorescence in-situ hybridization for the detection
of biofilm in the middle ear and upper respiratory tract mucosa.
J Methods Mol Biol 2009;493:191–213.
5. Mallmann C, Siemoneit S, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence in situ
hybridization to improve the diagnosis of endocarditis: A pilot
study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010;16:767–773.
6. Poppert S, Riecker M, Wellinghausen N, Frickmann H, Essig A.
Accelerated identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood
cultures by a modified fluorescence in situ hybridization procedure.
J Med Microbiol 2010;59:65–68.
7. Zautner AE, Krause M, Stropahl G, et al. Intracellular persisting
Staphylococcus aureus is the major pathogen in recurrent
tonsillitis. PLoS ONE 2010;5:9452.
8. Wu Q, Li Y, Wang M, Pan XP, Tang YF. Fluorescence in situ
hybridization rapidly detects three different pathogenic bacteria in
urinary tract infection samples. J Microbiol Methods 2010;83:
175–178.
9. Moter A, Gobel UB. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for
direct visualization of microorganisms. J Microbiol Methods
2000;41:85–112.
10. Peters RP, Agtmael MAV, Simoons-Smit AM, Danner SA,
Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Savelkoul PH. Rapid identi-
fication of pathogens in blood cultures with a modified fluores-
cence in situ hybridization assay. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:
4186–4188.
11. Zwirglmaier K. Detection of prokaryotic cells with fluorescence in
situ hybridization. J Methods Mol Biol 2010;659:349.
12. Cimino M, Alamo L, Salazar L. Permeabilization of the
mycobacterial envelope for protein cytolocalization studies by
immunofluorescence microscopy. BMC Microbiol 2006;6:35.
13. Kempf VA, Trebesius K, Autenrieth IB. Fluorescent in situ
hybridization allows rapid identification of microorganisms in
blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:830–838.
14. Kipp F, Ziebuhr W, Becker K, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus
aureus by 16S rRNA directed in situ hybridisation in a patient with
a brain abscess caused by small colony variants. Br Med J
2003;56:746.
15. Hoa M, Tomovic S, Nistico L, et al. Identification of adenoid
biofilms with middle ear pathogens in otitis-prone children
utilizing SEM and FISH. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
2009;73:1242–1248.
16. Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R. Fluorescence in situ
hybridization and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identi-
fication of marine bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002;68:
3094–3101.
17. Thomas LC, Gidding HF, Ginn AN, Olma T, Iredell J.
Development of a real-time Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA
(SAM-) PCR for routine blood culture. J Microbiol Methods
2007;68:296–302.
18. Cisani G, Varaldo PE, Grazi G, Soro O. High-level potentiation of
lysostaphin anti-staphylococcal activity by lysozyme. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 1982;21:531–535.
19. Oliveira M, Bexiga R, Nunes SF, et al. Biofilm-forming ability
profiling of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis
mastitis isolates. Vet Microbiol 2006;118:133–140.
20. Gescher DM, Kovacevic D, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence
in situ hybridisation (FISH) accelerates identification of gram-
positive cocci in positive blood cultures. Int J Antimicrob Agents
2008;32:51–59.
21. Yan C, Ding B, Lan X, Guo S, Xie Y, Wang C. The toxicity study
on marine low-temperature lysozyme. Food Chem Toxicol
2008;46:604–609.
22. Szweda P, Kotlowski R, Kur J. New effective sources of
the Staphylococcus simulans lysostaphin. J Biotechnol 2005;117:
203–213.
23. Veeh RH, Shirtliff ME, Petik JR, et al. Detection of Staphylo-
coccus aureus biofilm on tampons and menses components.
J Infect Dis 2003;188:519–530.
24. Macnaughton SJ, O’Donnell AG, Embley TM. Permeabilization
of mycolic-acid-containing actinomycetes for in situ hybridization
with fluorescently labelled oligonucleotide probes. Microbiology
1994;140:2859.
25. Manz W, Amann R, Ludwig W, Wagner M, Schleifer KH.
Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes for the major subclasses
of proteobacteria: Problems and solutions. Syst Appl Microbiol
1992;15:593–600.
26. Millar BC, Loughrey A, Elborn JS, Moore JE. Proposed
definitions of community-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylo-
coccus aureus (CA-MRSA). J Hosp Infect 2007;67:109–113.
146 Lawson et al.
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
80 Development of new FISH methods
27. Gijlswijk RPV, Wiegant J, Raap AK, Tanke HJ. Improved
localization of fluorescent tyramides for fluorescence in situ
hybridization using dextran sulfate and polyvinyl alcohol.
J Histochem Cytochem 1996;44:389–392.
28. Trebesius K, Leitritz L, Adler K, Schubert S, Autenrieth IB,
Heesemann J. Culture independent and rapid identification of
bacterial pathogens in necrotising fasciitis and streptococcal toxic
shock syndrome by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Med
Microbiol Immunol 2000;188:169–175.
29. Lagace-Wiens PR, Alfa MJ, Manickam K, Karlowsky JA.
Thermostable DNase is superior to tube coagulase for the direct
detection of Staphylococcus aureus in positive blood cultures.
J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:3478–3479.
30. Sturm PDJ, Kwa D, Vos FJ, Bartels CJM, Schulin T. Performance
of two tube coagulase methods for rapid identification of
Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures and their impact
on antimicrobial management. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14:
510–513.
147S. aureus Detection With Lysozyme FISH
J. Clin. Lab. Anal.
4.1 Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with a fluorescence in situhybridization that does not require lysostaphin 81
NOTE TO THE EDITOR
Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl fluorescence in situhybridization assay for Staphylococcus aureusT.S. Lawson, R.E. Connally, S. Vemulpad and J.A. Piper
Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia
Slide-based fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a
robust assay for characterizing intact bacteria in clinical
specimens. It is usually run with an incubator and a
water-bath and with dimethyl formamide (referred to as
formamide) and NaCl buffers (Wang 2010). Occasionally
a specialized hot-plate is used for hybridization with DNA
(Poppert et al. 2010) or PNA probes (AC005; AdvanDx,
Wobum, MA) followed by washing with a thermo-mixer
(Poppert et al. 2010) or water-bath (AC006; AdvanDx). A
regular hot-plate has not been used, however, for the
entire FISH assay with DNA probes.
This report identified Staphylococcus aureus with a
novel FISH assay performed on a single hot-plate using
DNA probes. Staphylococcus aureus is a clinically signifi-
cant Gram-positive bacteria (Wang 2010) and if DNA
probes are used, its permeabilization can be more com-
plex than other bacteria (Poppert et al. 2010). The new
assay tested is modified from an assay reported by the
authors (Lawson et al. 2011). Improvements include
marking the slides with a wax pencil, replacing the form-
amide-NaCl buffers with urea-NaCl reagents and using a
hot-plate with a plastic cover instead of 50 ml tubes, an
incubator and a water-bath (Lawson et al. 2011). To
compare the signal strength of the new assay, the previous
assay (Lawson et al. 2011) was run in parallel as a
control.
If a hot-plate is used for incubations, reagents can dry
out and the temperature can fluctuate, both of which can
result in a weaker hybridization signal. Possible solutions
to enhance the signal were tested including using urea as
an alternative denaturing reagent to formamide (Soe et al.
2011). Unlike formamide, urea is non-toxic (Simard et al.
2001), can inhibit RNase degradation (Simard et al. 2001)
and can act as an additional permeabilizer with the result
that the FISH signal could be increased (Huang et al.
2011).
In preparation for FISH, 10 clinical isolates of PBP2-
negative S. aureus and 10 of Staphylococcus epidermidis
previously identified with PCR (Thomas et al. 2007) were
randomly collected at a hospital and cultured in nutrient
broth to an optical density of 1Æ0 at 600 nm (CM0001;
Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK). Cultures were diluted 1 : 10 in
broth, and 10 ll aliquots were spotted to slide-wells
(X1XER308B; Menzel-Glaser, Braunschweig, Germany),
dried at 47�C on a hot-plate and fixed with absolute
methanol for 1 min. Wells were marked with a wax pen-
cil to restrain reagents to the wells.
Two FISH assays were tested, an incubator-bath assay
described in Lawson et al. (2011) and a hot-plate FISH
assay (this report). Two sets of hybridization and washing
reagents were tested with each assay. The first used con-
ventional hybridization (formamide-NaCl) and NaCl
Keywords
detection, identification, infection, rapid
methods, staphylococci.
Correspondence
Tom Lawson, Faculty of Science, Macquarie
University, NSW 2109, Australia.
E-mail: tomxlawson@gmail.com
2011 ⁄ 1642: received 27 September 2011,
revised 1 December 2011 and accepted 2
December 2011
doi:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03197.x
Abstract
Aims: To test the feasibility of identifying Staphylococcus aureus with a fluores-
cence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay that uses a single hot-plate and urea-
NaCl reagents.
Methods and Results: Slides spotted with S. aureus and treated with methanol
and lysozyme were incubated with urea-NaCl reagents on a hot-plate with a
precise temperature control and identified with specific DNA probes.
Conclusions: Staphylococcus aureus was detected and differentiated from Staph-
ylococcus epidermidis in 1 h with a novel FISH method that used a single
hot-plate and in the absence of dimethyl formamide.
Significance and Impact of Study: A rapid hot-plate FISH assay with urea-
NaCl and without toxic dimethyl formamide might be useful if FISH is run
infrequently or where resources are limited.
Letters in Applied Microbiology ISSN 0266-8254
ª 2011 The Authors
Letters in Applied Microbiology ª 2011 The Society for Applied Microbiology 1
82 Development of new FISH methods
4.2 Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)
assay for Staphylococcus aureus
washing buffers (Poppert et al. 2010; Lawson et al. 2011).
The second used urea with NaCl (urea-NaCl) for both
hybridization and washing (this report). With all treat-
ments, two DNA probes Staaur (16S69: 5¢-GAAGCAAG-
CTTCTCGTCCG -3¢) and EUB338 probe (16S337: 5¢-GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT -3¢) conjugated at the 5¢ end
to Alexa Fluor 488 identified S. aureus and eubacteria,
respectively.
The first FISH assay was tested with an incubator-bath
and formamide-NaCl reagents (Poppert et al. 2010; Lawson
et al. 2011). To permeabilize the bacteria, wells were spot-
ted with 30 ll of 15 mg ml)1 lysozyme (pH 7Æ0). The slides
were fitted into 50 ml tubes (210–261; Greiner Bio-One,
Frickenhansen, Germany), incubated at 47�C for 30 min
and then rinsed with methanol and dried. For hybridiza-
tion, wells were spotted with 20 ll of formamide-NaCl buf-
fer [30% (v ⁄ v) formamide (A2156; Applichem, Darmstadt,
Germany), 0Æ9 mol l)1 NaCl (S6191; Sigma-Aldrich, St
Louis, MO), 20 lmol l)1 Tris–HCl (pH 7Æ0), 0Æ01% (w ⁄ v)
SDS (4390; Sigma, L4390) in Milli-Q (MQ) water; Milli-
pore, Bedford, MA] containing 1 lmol l)1 of probe.
The slides were fitted into 50 ml tubes and placed in a
47�C incubator for 20 min. After hybridization, slides
were rinsed with prewarmed NaCl washing buffer
[0Æ64 mol l)1 NaCl, 20 lmol l)1 Tris–HCl (pH 7Æ0) and
0Æ01% SDS in MQ water] and fitted into 50 ml tubes
containing 25 ml of prewarmed washing buffer and
placed in a gently agitated 47�C water-bath for 5 min.
Slides were removed and rinsed with MQ water and
mounted wet with a cover-slip for viewing.
The second FISH assay used a hot-plate and was opti-
mized with urea-NaCl (this report). The permeabilization
step was the same as before except that it was performed on
a 47�C hot-plate, and the slides were covered with a clear
plastic lid (78 · 78 mm, 123160; Decor, Melbourne, Aus-
tralia) to minimize temperature change and reagent drying.
The hot-plate was developed by one of the authors (Russell
Connally) and had an accuracy of ±0Æ5�C at 47�C. A
platinum resistance probe was used with a microcomputer
display for accurate temperature control. Slides were rinsed
with methanol and were dried before 20 ll of urea-NaCl
[1 mol l)1 urea (U6504; Sigma), 0Æ9 mol l)1 NaCl,
20 lmol l)1 Tris-HCl (pH 7Æ0) in MQ water] with 1 lmol
l)1 of probe was spotted to each well.
Slides were incubated on the 47�C hot-plate for 20 min
before rinsing twice with prewarmed 250 ll of urea-NaCl
[8 mol l)1 urea, 0Æ9 mol l)1 NaCl, MQ water and
20 lmol l)1 Tris-HCl (pH 7Æ0)]. Slides were placed on
the hot-plate and 30 ll of prewarmed urea-NaCl was
spotted immediately to each well. Slides were incubated
with the plastic cover for 5 min, rinsed twice with urea-
NaCl again before a final rinse with MQ water and
mounting as before.
Slides were visualized with an epifluorescence
microscope (BX51; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) fitted with a
60 objective (UPLFLN; Olympus) and FITC ⁄ DAPI filters
(U-MWU2, U-MWIB2; Olympus). Images were acquired
at a resolution of 1360 · 1024 with an Olympus DP72 cam-
era and software (DP2-BSW v2Æ2; Olympus) set to a gain of
200 ISO and an exposure of 2 s. Images from three experi-
mental runs were analysed with ImageJ (v1Æ43u; NIH,
Bethesda, MD). Summary statistics were compared with
one-way analysis of variance (anova) and a P value of 0Æ05.
A summary of the results for the two FISH assays and
their reagents is listed in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 1(a–
d). Staphylococcus epidermidis was negative for the Staaur
probe (Fig. 1f), and S. aureus and Staph. epidermidis were
both positive for the EUB338 probe. The incubator-bath
assay produced a higher signal than the hot-plate. The
incubation temperature and humidity were observed to
vary more on a hot-plate as it was not sealed. The urea-
NaCl produced a higher signal than the formamide-NaCl.
Urea might be acting as an additional premeabilizer for
S. aureus (Huang et al. 2011). No difference in signal was
observed between the 10 isolates of each bacteria tested.
The one-way anova found a significant difference
(P < 0Æ000) for the four treatments listed in Table 1.
The hot-plate assay was initially developed with the con-
ventional formamide-NaCl hybridization and washing buf-
fers. The signal was observed to be weaker than the same
assay run with an incubator and a water-bath (Table 1). To
increase the signal, urea was tested as a substitute for form-
amide in the hybridization buffer at 0Æ5, 1, 2, 4 and 8 mol l)1
(Kourilsky et al. 1970; Simard et al. 2001; Soe et al. 2011)
with NaCl at 0Æ9 mol l)1 (Poppert et al. 2010; Lawson et al.
2011). The signal was highest at 1 and 2 mol l)1 urea, and
1 mol l)1 was chosen for further testing.
A number of washing treatments were tested with the 1
mol l)1 urea and 0Æ9 mol l)1 NaCl hybridization reagent.
Table 1 A comparison of the Staaur probe signal intensity for each
of the FISH treatments tested with Staphylococcus aureus.
FISH treatment
Signal intensity
Mean* CI�
Incubator-bath FISH assay�
Formamide-NaCl and NaCl buffers 36Æ09 0Æ62
Urea-NaCl reagents 49Æ5 1Æ23
Hot-plate FISH assay§
Formamide-NaCl and NaCl buffers 32Æ7 0Æ52
Urea-NaCl reagents 45Æ2 1Æ13
*Mean signal intensity was measured in 8-bit Gray-scale.
�Confidence interval was calculated at 95%.
�Incubator-bath FISH protocol (Lawson et al. 2011) as described in
this report.
§Hot-plate FISH protocol as described in this report.
FISH on a hot-plate with urea Lawson et al.
2 Letters in Applied Microbiology ª 2011 The Society for Applied Microbiology
ª 2011 The Authors
4.2 Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl fluorescence in situhybridization (FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus 83
A conventional wash containing 0Æ9 mol l)1 NaCl was
applied for 1 min as described previously (Lawson et al.
2011), but the signal was inconsistent. Urea was reported
by Hutton (1977) to reduce melting temperature by
approx. 2Æ25�C with each 1 mol l)1 increase in its concen-
tration whereas melting temperature was reduced by
approx. 0Æ6�C with each 1% (v ⁄ v) increase of formamide.
To improve the signal and to simplify the assay, the
washing buffer was replaced with the urea-NaCl reagents
used in the hybridization step.
The stringency of this new washing regime was
adjusted with urea rather than with the conventional
NaCl and was set higher than that used for hybridization
so that duplexes with mismatches would be removed. The
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
(g)
Figure 1 Staphylococcus aureus visualized with Alexa Fluor� 488 after performing an incubator-bath FISH assay with (a) formamide-NaCl (Law-
son et al. 2011) or (b) urea-NaCl reagents (this report). Staphylococcus aureus after performing the hot-plate FISH assay (this report) with (c) form-
amide-NaCl or (d) urea-NaCl reagents. The same S. aureus visualized with (e) DAPI. Staphylococcus epidermidis after performing the hot-plate
assay with urea-NaCl and visualized with (f) Alexa or (g) DAPI. Bar in lower right corner is 5 lm.
Lawson et al. FISH on a hot-plate with urea
ª 2011 The Authors
Letters in Applied Microbiology ª 2011 The Society for Applied Microbiology 3
84 Development of new FISH methods
urea wash was tested at 0, 1, 2, 4 and 8 mol l)1 with
NaCl at 0Æ9 mol l)1 (Kourilsky et al. 1970; Simard et al.
2001; Soe et al. 2011). The non-specific signal for
Staph. epidermidis was the weakest at 4 and 8 mol l)1
urea. To minimize background signal, the 8 mol l)1 con-
centration was chosen (Kourilsky et al. 1970). Increasing
urea from 1 mol l)1 in the hybridization step to 8 mol l)1
in the washing step decreased the melting temperature by
about 26�C (Hutton 1977).
The findings suggest that if urea-NaCl reagents are
used, it is feasible to control hybridization conditions and
produce a sufficient signal with the hot-plate FISH
method. There are, however, some limitations to the find-
ing. The relationship between urea and formamide con-
centrations and urea’s action as a permeabilizer was not
established. Although it was not observed after the
20 min hybridization step, urea can have a slower rate of
denaturation than formamide (Hutton 1977). Other bac-
teria were not tested, and the specificity and sensitivity of
the assay were not assessed.
In conclusion, we described a novel FISH assay that does
not require an incubator, water-bath, formamide, lysosta-
phin or PNA probes (the latter two are expensive). Urea-
NaCl reagents were simple to prepare and unlike formam-
ide, non-toxic. The exclusion of formamide may open up
new applications, such as simplified FISH analysis using cell
sorters or FISH procedures using beacon probes without an
additional washing step. The findings warrant further spec-
ificity and sensitivity testing in a clinical scenario.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Australian Research Coun-
cil’s Linkage Projects (LP0775196) for funding this
research and the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility
(APAF) for providing laboratory facilities.
References
Huang, E., Talukder, S., Hughes, T.R., Curk, T., Zupan, B.,
Shaulsky, G. and Katoh-Kurasawa, M. (2011) BzpF is a
CREB-like transcription factor that regulates spore
maturation and stability in dictyostelium. Dev Biol 358,
137–146.
Hutton, J.R. (1977) Renaturation kinetics and thermal stability
of DNA in aqueous solutions of formamide and urea.
Nucleic Acids Res 4, 3537–3555.
Kourilsky, P., Manteuil, S., Zamansky, M.H. and Gros, F.
(1970) DNA-RNA hybridization at low temperature in the
presence of urea. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 41, 1080–
1087.
Lawson, T.S., Connally, R.E., Iredell, J.R., Vemulpad, S. and
Piper, J.A. (2011) Detection of Staphylococcus aureus with
a fluorescence in situ hybridization that does not require
lysostaphin. J Clin Lab Anal 25, 142–147.
Poppert, S., Riecker, M., Wellinghausen, N., Frickmann, H.
and Essig, A. (2010) Accelerated identification of Staphylo-
coccus aureus from blood cultures by a modified fluores-
cence in situ hybridization procedure. J Med Microbiol 59,
65–68.
Simard, C., Lemieux, R. and Cote, S. (2001) Urea substitutes
toxic formamide as destabilizing agent in nucleic acid
hybridizations with RNA probes. Electrophoresis 22, 2679–
2683.
Soe, M.J., Moller, T., Dufva, M. and Holmstrom, K. (2011) A
sensitive alternative for MicroRNA in situ hybridizations
using probes of 2¢-O-Methyl RNA+ LNA. J Histochem Cy-
tochem 59, 661–672.
Thomas, L.C., Gidding, H.F., Ginn, A.N., Olma, T. and Iredell,
J. (2007) Development of a real-time Staphylococcus aureus
and MRSA (SAM-) PCR for routine blood culture. J
Microbiol Methods 68, 296–302.
Wang, P. (2010) Simultaneous detection and differentiation of
staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluorescence
in situ hybridization. Med Princ Pract 19, 218–221.
FISH on a hot-plate with urea Lawson et al.
4 Letters in Applied Microbiology ª 2011 The Society for Applied Microbiology
ª 2011 The Authors
4.2 Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-NaCl fluorescence in situhybridization (FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus 85
86 Development of new FISH methods
Development of new FISH methods: a summary
A summary of the findings reported in this Chapter follows. SA was sufficiently per-
meabilized after methanol fixation and incubation with lysozyme so that it could be
detected with DNA probes and FISH in one hour (4). The lysozyme-only FISH assay
was repeated, but with changes. Formamide typically used in the hybridization buffer
was replaced with non-toxic urea and the incubator and water bath with a precision
temperature controlled hot-plate. SA was detected as rapidly as by the conventional
assay, but with a higher signal intensity when urea was used (5).
There were limitations to these findings. The earlier FISH assays tested cultures of
isolates of SA. If the same FISH procedure was applied to blood samples that contained
a high proportion of non-target material, these materials interfered with the access of
the FISH probe and its signal. When the urea-NaCl assay was repeated in purified
blood samples that contained SA, it was not possible to detect SA without interference
from the autofluorescence in the blood-debris that remained.
The following Chapter reports on methodological improvements for reducing signal
interference from non-target material in the specimen. Two approaches were investi-
gated, the non-target material was removed and the emission signal was time-resolved.
A simple blood bacteremia model was tested by spiking whole-blood with SA and
incubating the blood. To remove most of the non-target material, the separation of
intra and inter-cellular SA from the blood was attempted with a lysis and purifica-
tion procedure. A number of in situ hybridization (ISH) techniques were tested to
label the separated SA in the remaining blood-debris. This included a luminescence
in situ hybridization (LISH) assay, based on the lysozyme-only permeabilization FISH
assay developed in the project (4), to label SA with a long-lifetime luminescent probe.
Autofluorescence from the specimen could then be suppressed by visualizing the probe
with time-gated luminescence microscopy (TGLM).
5Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a
europium chelate label
This Chapter reports on the time-resolved visualization of S. aureus (SA) labeled with
europium probes using a luminescence in situ hybridization (LISH). A description is
offered of a novel technique that was developed for the separation and purification of
SA that was spiked and incubated in whole-blood (138). A report is then made on the
detection of SA labeled with a europium chelate probe. The signal of the probe was
time-resolved to suppress the autofluorescence of the remaining blood debris.
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly la-
beled with luminescence in situ hybridization
for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus
5.1.1 Abstract
Aim: To identify SA in whole-blood with a europium (Eu3+) chelate, luminescence
in situ hybridization (LISH) assay and time-gated luminescence microscopy (TGLM).
87
88 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
Methods and Results: Whole-blood was spiked with SA and incubated for one hour.
SA was separated from the blood by lysis and centrifugation. SA was detected with a
Eu3+ chelate (BHTEGS) conjugated to a DNA (KT18) using a LISH assay. The SA
signal to noise ratio improved by a factor of at least 5 relative to SA detected with a
conventional non time-resolved fluorophore.
Conclusions: It was possible to rapidly identify SA with a Eu3+ chelate, a LISH
assay and TGLM in two-hours.
Significance and impact of study: Bacteria can be more readily identified with
TGLM, in specimens that are highly auto-fluorescent.
Keywords: autofluorescence, chelate, europium, in situ hybridization (ISH), lan-
thanide, luminescence in situ hybridization (LISH), Staphylococcus aureus, time-gated
luminescence microscopy (TGLM), time-resolved, whole-blood
5.1.2 Introduction
Fluorescent techniques such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) can accurately
and rapidly detect microbes in blood-cultures. The results from FISH can be poor if
it is applied to specimens with complex matrices such as whole-blood. The natural
background fluorescence of the specimen can overwhelm the signal from a FISH probe
(44, 121, 39, 125). One solution is to time-resolve the signal using time-gated lumines-
cence microscopy (TGLM) (46).
By gating the emission signal, the short-lived background signal of the specimen is
removed and the probe emission remains for detection (149, 161). The technique uses
an excitation pulse to create an emission signal from the specimen. While the detector
is in the off position, the pulse is terminated abruptly. After the short-lived specimen
fluorescence has decayed, the detector is turned on and a target signal acquired, that
is free of background noise (46).
Although it is useful, TGLM is not often used with in situ hybridization (ISH) as-
says (149). It requires probes and microscopy equipment that are specialized and can
be complex to use (162, 149). Lanthanide trivalent ions (Eu3+, Dy3+, Sm3+ and
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 89
Tb3+) are commonly used as the luminophores in TGLM. Ln3+ ions produce narrow-
spectrum emissions with long-lifetimes in the visible to infra-red spectrum (163). Be-
cause Ln3+ have low absorption coefficients they require chelating to produce a high
signal emission (164). The chelates absorb most of the light and transfer it to the Ln3+
for emission.
The chelates are complex and thus difficult to synthesize and are reactive and prone
to insolubility (151). Water from the specimen can also access the chelate and quench
the Ln3+ signal (47). For a high emission signal, the chelates require UV excitation
at wavelengths around 330 nm prolonged exposure of which can damage the specimen
(165). Even with chelating and short wavelength excitation, the signal from in situ
assays can still be too weak for routine diagnostics.
Attempts have been made to improve these shortcomings (47). Ln3+ ions such as
Eu3+ chelates can produce enough signal after excitation at the longer wavelengths
of 350 to 365 nm (47). New chelates have been developed such as europium (Eu3+)
BHHST, a derivative of BHHCT, tetradentate β-diketone (151). To increase its solubil-
ity and stability, it uses a hydrophilic molecular tether attached to a BHHCT molecule.
This allows BHHST to be conjugated to biomolecules without inducing precipitation
from solution (136).
BHHST has improved solubility and stability (161), but it is only a partial solu-
tion. It is still not stable or soluble enough to be applied as a streptavidin conjugate
to in situ hybridization assays (data not shown) (145, 45). To remedy this, another
BHHCT derivative Eu3+ chelate BHTEGS was developed by members of the candi-
date’s research group (Russell Connally and Nima Sayyadi, manuscript in preparation).
Initial tests suggest that it is more soluble and less reactive than BHHST (151) and
that it can be directly conjugated to DNA sequences and it does not interfere with its
hybridization (data not shown).
Specialized equipment and a modified microscope is typically required for the time-
resolution of the chelates (162). The pulsed excitation and time-resolution of the
emission signal has to be precisely synchronized. In this study, however, a simple-to-
use time-gated auto-synchronous luminescence detector (GALD) device (developed by
90 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
Russell Connally) was used (148). This device may make it simpler to carry out TGLM
in routine diagnostics. The pocket-size device fitted into the differential interference
and contrast (DIC) slot of the microscope and had its own UV light source. The
device simultaneously blocked the short-term fluorescence and transmitted the delayed
luminescence (148).
To compensate for the reactivity and low emission signal of early chelates (165),
early TGLM ISH studies were complicated and lengthy (149, 150). Usually the signal
was not visible through the eye-piece and could only be detected with a sensitive camera
(149). To amplify the weak signal (45), the ISH assays used biotinylated DNA probes
(150) or ran incubations over-night for probe hybridization (149). The weak chelate
signal could then amplified with a streptavidin (149) or tyramide conjugate (150).
These solutions, however complicated and lengthened the ISH assay making its
use in diagnostics limited (149, 150). If directly labeled chelates such as BHTEGS
could be applied to ISH with sufficient signal, a simpler, more rapid assay could be
used. Direct conjugation of chelates with DNA is possible. Ln3+ chelates have already
been conjugated directly to oligonucleotides and these bio-conjugates used in Forster
resonance energy transfer (FRET) assays where reactivity is less of a problem (165).
The aim of this study is to test the feasibility of rapid SA detection in a blood
sample with an ISH assay that is visualized with TGLM. SA is a frequent cause of
bacteraemia and severe sepsis (55) and blood can be highly autofluorescent (100). The
study proposed to spike blood with SA and then incubate it so that the SA undergoes
phagocytosis. The blood will be lysed and centrifuged to separate and collect the SA.
A slide-based LISH assay will be performed with the novel Eu3+ BHTEGS DNA probe
and an Alexa Fluor R© 488 (Invitrogen) (Alexa) probe as a control. To the candidate’s
knowledge, this is the first report of the time-gated luminescence detection of bacteria
hybridized to a luminescent probe.
5.1.3 Method
SA isolates identified with PCR (158) and sourced from clinical specimens were cultured
in nutrient broth (Oxoid, CM0001) Figure 5.1 (3). Cultures were washed and diluted
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 91
in saline to an optical density of 1.0 at 600 nm (159). Venous blood from a healthy
volunteer was collected in EDTA tubes (Becton Dickinson, 367863). A simple in vitro
bacteraemia model was created by spiking the whole-blood while fresh, with SA and
incubating (160). For 1 ml of blood, 10 µl of SA prepared in saline was added (1.0
optical density at 600 nm). The blood was then incubated with gentle agitation at 37
◦C for one hour.
Rather than labeling SA in intact blood with LISH or FISH as reported elsewhere
(100, 63, 62), the SA was first separated from the blood with alkaline water (138). The
alkaline water was prepared by adding 4 mM NaOH to Milli-Q (MQ) water (pH 10.0).
Blood and alkaline water at a ratio of 1:10 were mixed by vortexing (to make a final
pH of 8.5) and then centrifuged for five minutes at 3,000 rcf. The supernatant was
removed and this alkaline water lysis treatment repeated.
The vortexed pellet was spotted to slide-wells (Menzel-Glaser, X1XER308B) and
dried with a 60 ◦C hot-plate. Wells were marked with a wax-pencil (Staedtler R©,
Chinagraph) to reduced run-off and specimen contamination. SA samples were fixed
with absolute methanol for one minute and the slides dried again on the 60 ◦C hot-
plate (2). One of the Candidate’s research team (Russell Connally) conjugated the
novel Eu3+ BHTEGS chelate to a DNA sequence KT18 (Geneworks, 16S68: 5’-
GCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTT -3’) (1) specific for SA 16S rRNA.
An in situ hybridization assay was applied (4). SA was permeabilized with lysozyme
at 37 ◦C for one hour, rinsed with absolute methanol and incubated at 47 ◦C with
hybridization buffer containing the probe for 30 minutes. The buffer was then rinsed
off with MQ water, the slides air-dried and 10 µl of fluorescence enhancing buffer (FEB)
(148) containing 0.4 mM Eu3+ was spotted to each well. The slides were mounted while
still wet, with a cover-slip and left at room temperature for 20 minutes before viewing.
Slides were viewed with an epifluorescence microscope (BX51, Olympus) fitted with
a 60× objective (UPLFLN, Olympus) and a time-gated auto-synchronous luminescence
detector (GALD) held in its DIC prism slot (148). The GALD device used a 355 nm UV
from a 100 mW YAG laser as the excitation source. Time-resolved images were acquired
after a two second exposure with an Olympus DP72 camera and software (Olympus,
92 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
DP2-BSW v2.2) set to 200 ISO and a resolution of 1,360×1,024. When Alexa was
visualized without TGLM, the GALD was locked into the open position (148). The
mean signal intensity (8-bit gray-scale) for BHTEGS and Alexa were compared and
analyzed with ImageJ using standard algorithms (NIH, v1.43u) (Figure 5.4).
5.1.4 Results
In this study, the feasibility of detecting SA with a europium chelate conjugated to
DNA, luminescent in situ hybridization (LISH) assay and time-gating of the lumines-
cent signal (TGLM) was tested. SA was separated from blood along with other debris
in the blood. A LISH assay with BHTEGS conjugated to K18 DNA (1) was com-
pleted in two hours. SA was identified with minimal background signal (Figure 5.3)
and S. epidermidis (SE) (a negative control) was not detected (Figure 5.2). SA was
also identified with BHTEGS in cultures containing no observed debris (Figure 5.1).
As a control the assay was tested with Alexa Fluor R© 488 (Alexa) also conjugated
to the K18 oligonucleotide (Figure 5.1 and 5.3). The SA cells had an Alexa signal
and the SE cells had a partial signal. A comparison of the signal to noise ratio (S/N)
for BHTEGS and Alexa is shown in Figure 5.4 and in Table 5.1. The S/N ratio for
BHTEGS was over five times higher than the same oligonucleotide conjugated to Alexa.
Although it is meant to be viewed under pulsed and not constant UV illumination,
BHTEGS was more photo-sensitive than Alexa. Its signal faded within 30 seconds of
UV excitation, whereas the Alexa signal was still visible after one minute.
BHTEGS was initially tested with a FISH assay reported earlier by the candidate
(4). The buffer contained reagents typically used in FISH washes (0.2818 M NaCl, 20
mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 0.01% SDS, 10 mM EDTA, and MQ water). The Eu3+ signal
was weak, so the EDTA was removed and the LISH assay was repeated. The signal
remained low until this washing buffer was replaced with a gentle MQ water rinse. To
compare the S/N of BHTEGS, Alexa was also tested (Figure 5.3). Although a signal
was not observed with BHTEGS and the negative control SE after a MQ water rinse,
weak Alexa signal was observed with SE. No improvement in the signal was observed
when the hybridization buffer with formamide, but without the probe, was applied as
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 93
a five minute wash.
The MQ water rinse was used in the final LISH assay. The BHTEGS signal was
further improved by extending incubation times from 30 minutes (4) to one hour for
permeabilization and from 20 minutes (4) to 30 minutes for the hybridization.
The accuracy of the blood model was also confirmed. Blood was separated with Dex-
tran 500 (Pharmacosmos) (166) and intra-cellular SA was observed when the leukocytes
were lysed with water. A comparison of inter-cellular and intra-cellular SA with 0.285
µg/ml DAPI (Sigma, D9542) staining suggested that a majority of the SA underwent
phagocytosis, but remained intact (19, 132) and, when separated from leukocytes and
placed in nutrient broth, was still viable and could be cultured rapidly. When the blood
was lysed by diluting in alkali (138) instead of with MQ water, debris was minimized
and the detection of SA with ISH was unhampered.
5.1.5 Discussion
We set out to test the efficacy of a novel TGLM Eu3+ probe, the chelate BHTEGS, and
a novel LISH assay. The assay was modified from a FISH assay (4) and was applied to
SA separated from whole-blood. The study found that BHTEGS and LISH suppressed
a majority of the autofluorescence of blood-debris. The S/N ratio of SA labeled with
BHTEGS was over five times greater than for SA labeled with Alexa Fluor R© 488
(Alexa) conjugated to the same DNA probe (Figure 5.3) (Table 5.1).
An earlier report applied an in situ hybridization method to label and detect viruses
with a time-resolved chelate BHHCT (149). In that study, europium was conjugated to
the streptavidin molecule and the oligonucleotide was biotinylated. The hybridization
buffer contained 50% formamide with 2×SSC (0.28 M NaCl and 0.28 M sodium citrate,
pH 7.2), 10% dextran sulfate and 0.4 mg/ml salmon sperm DNA. The DNA-biotin
conjugate was hybridized to its mRNA or DNA targets overnight at 42 ◦C and then
bound the next day to the europium conjugate streptavidin by incubating at room
temperature for 30 minutes.
This study also used an in situ hybridization method, but differed significantly in
its approach. SA was permeabilized with lysozyme and not proteinase K, an enzyme
94 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
whose use can lead to loss of specimen and cells from the slide. The in situ hybridization
method used a fluorochrome or europium chelate (BHTEGS) conjugated directly to
DNA. The hybridization buffer used also contained formamide and NaCl, but did not
contain sodium citrate, dextran sulfate or salmon sperm DNA.
Hybridization time for the assay was much shorter, 30 minutes instead of overnight.
No biotin-streptavidin incubation step was required (145, 45). The washing was a
simple MQ rinse rather than a series of 2 x SSC washes for one hour. Specimens were
available for viewing within two hours.
Unlike Alexa, BHTEGS was more likely to produce a weak signal if the ISH assay
was not optimized. Blood-debris possibly obstructed permeabilization, hybridization
and visualization of SA. The use of lysozyme simplified the assay, but did produce a
lower level of permeabilization than if lysostaphin was used. To maximize this signal,
blood debris was more completely removed by diluting in alkaline water (138) twice
and the lysozyme incubation was lengthened from half to one hour (4).
Initially a conventional washing buffer with NaCl and EDTA buffer was applied (2).
NaCl and EDTA buffer was observed to weaken the Eu3+ signal and was replaced with
a simple MQ water rinse. The MQ water wash was sufficient for the BHTEGS probe,
but was less effective at removing partially bound Alexa probe. Without NaCl and
EDTA there was less control over the stringency of the wash which resulted occasionally
in an inconsistent signal.
Other problems were encountered with the BHTEGS and the ISH assay. Unlike an
earlier study that produced an immediate signal when Eu3+ was applied to chelates
exterior to the cells (136), in this study LISH required slides to be left for 20 minutes
before an Eu3+ signal could be seen. The five fold increase in the S/N ratio with
TGLM was not as high as in a previous report that tested pond water (136). The
smaller improvement in the S/N ratio might be due to a difference in the type of
specimens tested.
There was a noticeable reduction in signal if the GALD TGLM was used instead of a
regular excitation source and filter (Olympus, U-RFL-T, U-MWIB2) to illuminate the
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 95
BHTEGS. Connally et al. (148) calculated that GALD applied with a 260 µm gate-
delay reduced the signal by at least a third. To detect this lower signal, hybridization
of the BHTEGS chelate to SA needed to be optimal. Variation in the blood specimens,
however made this difficult to meet, with every experimental run.
The lysis protocol used to separate SA from whole-blood (138) was necessary for
the removal of the bulk of the non-target material in the blood so that SA could
be labeled with LISH. There maybe, however, other applications for this purification
technique. The viability of the SA that was separated was confirmed by culturing the
pellet in nutrient broth with all specimens becoming turbid within two hours. A recent
study determined the antibiotic susceptibility of SA with FISH, PNA probes and flow-
cytometry (35). It may be possible to combine these two techniques: the separation
of SA from blood (this study) and the detection of antibiotic susceptibility with FISH
(35), so that SA bacteraemia in whole-blood and its resistance to antibiotics can be
determined without first having to perform a two-day blood-culture.
There were limitations to the findings. Clinical isolates, reference strains and other
commonly encountered bacteria were not tested. Because tests were performed at a
non-clinical location, sensitivity and specificity tests were not performed. An in vitro
bacteremia model was used to simulate an auto-fluorescent specimen. It would not
be expected that SA counts in the blood of sepsis patients would be high enough for
detection with LISH or FISH (20) without first culturing the bacteria.
In conclusion, it was possible to separate SA from whole-blood for identification
with TGLM using a Eu3+ chelate. The LISH assay used for hybridizing the probe
was similar to the method used in other clinical microbiology FISH studies (32, 40).
Further investigations of BHTEGS, LISH and TGLM against a range of bacteria and
highly auto-fluorescent specimens might be warranted.
96 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
(a) BHTEGS
(b) Alexa Fluor
Figure 5.1: SA in pure cultures of nutrient broth labeled with (a) BHTEGS and (b)Alexa Fluor R© 488. The BHTEGS signal is time-resolved and the Alexa Fluor signalis not. Bar is 5 µm.
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 97
(a) SA bright-field (b) SA TGLM
(c) S. epidermidis bright-field (d) S. epidermidis TGLM
Figure 5.2: Staphylococci separated from whole-blood and SA labeled with KT68 andBHTEGS and visualized with (a) bright-field and (b) LISH and TGLM. S. epidermidislabeled with KT68 and visualized with (c) bright-field and (d) LISH and TGLM. Baris 5 µm.
98 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
(a) BHTEGS
(b) Alexa Fluor
Figure 5.3: SA separated from whole-blood labeled with (a) BHTEGS and (b) AlexaFluor R© 488. The BHTEGS signal is time-resolved and the Alexa Fluor signal is not.P indicates plot locations in Figure 5.4. Bar is 5 µm.
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 99
(a) BHTEGS TGLM
(b) Alexa Fluor R©
Figure 5.4: Plots of the 8-bit Grey scale signal of SA labeled with (a) BHTEGS and(b) Alexa Fluor 488. Plots correspond to the line sample that transects at P in Figure5.3. Bar is 5 µm.
100 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
Table 5.1: Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of SA labeled∗ with BHTEGS or Alexa Fluor R©488 conjugated to KT68. The BHTEGS signal is time-resolved and the Alexa Fluorsignal is not.
ReporterSA† Background†
S/N
‡
∆ S/N
§
Mean¶ CI¶ Mean CI
BHTEGS 44.5 2.7 5.4 0.03 8.35.5
AlexaFluor R©488
43.8 0.8 28.6 0.03 1.5
∗ LISH method and visualization is described in the Methods section.† Figure 5.3 was used for sampling.¶ Mean signal (8-bit Grey scale) and 95% confidence interval.‡ S/N = Mean (SA)/Mean (Background).§ ∆ S/N = S/N (BHTEGS)/S/N (Alexa).
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects
(LP0775196), the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility (APAF), Douglass Hanly Moir
Pathology (Macquarie University Hospital), Hunters Hill Medical Practice and Mac-
quarie University Medical Centre.
5.1 Time-gating of a europium probe rapidly labeled with luminescencein situ hybridization for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus 101
Time-resolved fluorescence imaging: a summary
The findings outlined in this Chapter were as follows:
1. SA was incubated in whole blood and was shown to undergo phagocytosis.
2. SA was efficiently separated from most of the blood by lysis with alkali water
and centrifuging.
3. The separated SA could then be either detected with FISH and a conventional
DNA-based fluorophore or rapidly cultured to increase its numbers for detection
again with FISH.
4. To overcome the background signal from the remaining blood-debris, a lumines-
cence in situ hybridization (LISH) assay that was similar to FISH that used a
long-lifetime probe was applied and the probe was visualized with time-gated
luminescence microscopy (TGLM).
5. The signal to noise ratio of the time-resolved long-lifetime probe was higher than
the conventional DNA-based fluorophore and minimal background signal was
observed.
There were limitations to these findings. The synthesis and purification of the
europium chelate probe was not robust and its conjugation to DNA was not optimized
(151). The conditions best suited to the hybridization and washing of the probes were
not fully determined (5). In the technique that was used, a simple wash with MQ
water was applied and unbound probe was sufficiently, but not fully removed. There
were also shortcomings to the TGLM (46). The signal intensity of the excitation source
used with the gated auto-synchronous luminescence detection (GALD) device was low
and because of this, the TGLM signal was weak unless the probe was applied at a high
concentration and the permeabilization was optimal (148).
Further investigation into the ideal use of this novel europium probe and improve-
ments to the excitation source of the GALD were beyond the scope of the current
project (151, 148).
102 Time-gated fluorescence imaging of a europium chelate label
6Conclusion
The central aim of this project was the development of laboratory techniques which
offer (i) specific identification of an important pathogen and (ii) rapid results. These
aims were achieved.
The well-known and serious pathogen Staphylococcus aureus (SA) was chosen as the
model for a series of experiments relevant to these aims. The reason for choosing SA
was because it is an ubiquitous pathogen which commonly infects humans, it has lethal
potential and it has an unrivaled capacity to develop resistance to most antibiotics
(55, 54).
There were three main outcomes of this project. Firstly, current methods for the
conduct of FISH analyses were refined and improved. These advances were achieved
by a range of technical changes to existing methods plus the development of a series of
novel innovations. These changes and innovations included (i) the development of new
probes (specific DNA sequences) for use with FISH techniques (1), (ii) the use of new
high-yield fluorophores (1), (iii) the development and use of pre-mixed materials and
reagents for FISH techniques (2), (iv) use of sealable 50 ml centrifuge tubes to hold
slides in order to reduce the time needed for the permeabilization, hybridization and
washing incubation steps in FISH procedures (2) and (v) the development of a rapid
one-step (in place of a multi-step) permeabilization treatment to significantly reduce
103
104 Conclusion
the time required for FISH procedures (3).
The details are as follows:
1. Development of new probes - new FISH probes specific for SA were developed
(1). The number of potential probes for the identification of SA has doubled. The
new probes still targeted the same region of the SA 16S rRNA as the existing
probes, but had the advantage of greatly increasing the accuracy and specificity
of the FISH techniques.
2. High-yield fluorophores were found to label SA with a higher, more consistent
and photo-stable signal (140) than the fluorophores that are currently used (1).
In particular, Alexa Fluor R© (Invitrogen) and Dylight R© (Jackson) probes were
found to be superior to fluorescein, cyanine and other conventional fluorescent
dyes (2). Although these new high yield fluorophores were more costly than
existing reagents, because of their higher signal intensity they could be used at
lower concentrations and hence a reduced cost.
3. Use of pre-mixed materials and reagents for FISH techniques (2). New prepara-
tion techniques were developed to make it more straightforward to apply FISH
routinely in the microbiology laboratory. The approach of preparing and stor-
ing stock solutions and then mixing them just before use is standard practice in
laboratories. However, the use of pre-mixed materials for use in FISH has not
been previously reported. This procedure has three advantages, (i) reduction in
the time required for completion of FISH analyses, (ii) a significant improvement
in the consistency of FISH based analytical outcomes and (iii) repeated control
FISH tests only need to be run (using reference strains of pathogens) with each
new batch of the basic reagents.
4. Use of sealable centrifuge tubes (2). The use of sealable 50 ml centrifuge tubes
(Greiner, 210-261) to hold slides substantially reduced the time needed for the
permeabilization, hybridization and washing steps of incubation. Permeabiliza-
tion or hybridization activity of reagents was higher, the drying out of reagents
minimized and the results were more consistent.
105
5. The adhesion of the specimens to the slides was improved (2). Additional im-
provements to standard techniques for FISH included the use of agarose which
when applied and dried to the slides before spotting SA reduced their loss and
the use of urea, either diluted in the specimen or applied to specimen already
dried on the slide, also reduced cell loss (5).
6. A two-step permeabilization treatment was developed (2). This is useful when
high molecular weight probes are used to identify SA by FISH techniques. This
two-step permeabilization approach had additional advantages including very fast
outcomes and maintenance of the biological integrity of SA. Finally, because the
level of permeabilization was high, the time needed for high molecular weight
oligonucleotide hybridization was shortened.
7. A series of changes to the current FISH techniques has allowed a reduction in
the time to detect SA, to 24 minutes (3). This compares to an earlier time of
45 minutes to achieve this identification (32). In some clinical circumstances this
reduction in time taken to confirm the identity of SA can be life saving as the
use of particular antibiotics can be dependent on an accurate identification of the
pathogen. These advances in techniques will make it possible to complete both
Gram-stain and FISH analyses within an hour of a positive blood-culture.
Secondly, novel FISH procedures were investigated for the detection of SA. This
was achieved by developing FISH techniques that do not require lysostaphin per-
meabilization (4). Usually, lysostaphin permeabilization is a requirement for DNA
oligonucleotide probes to gain access to the SA bacteria (52). The use of lysostaphin
can complicate FISH analyses (32). A FISH assay that detects SA without requiring
lysostaphin makes its use more practical in routine diagnostic laboratories.
A novel FISH technique free of formamide that used a hot-plate with a precise
temperature control was developed (5). Urea was used to denature and hybridize
an oligonucleotide to SA (153). The assay did not need a dedicated incubator or
water-bath (thus saving expense and bench-space) because it could be performed on
a hot-plate. Urea was less toxic (144) than formamide (142) and produced a more
106 Conclusion
intense signal (153). The same hybridization reagent mix could be used in both the
hybridization and washing steps. This simplified the assay and meant that the wash-
ing step was less likely to produce a non-specific signal. Collectively these technical
developments have greatly simplified FISH analyses.
Thirdly, SA was identified with a luminescence in situ hybridization (LISH) assay
in complex blood-specimens (Chapter 5). A simple procedure was developed for the
creation of an in vitro bacteraemia model with SA (160) and then separating the SA
from the model for testing with FISH and LISH. SA were separated from the sample
by lysing the blood with alkaline water (138), centrifuging to remove the supernatant
and repeating the procedure. Most of the SA in the whole-blood was separated and
collected. The separation technique was accurate, rapid and simple to perform. It was
found to be not only useful for the immediate detection of SA, but also for its rapid
culturing (137). Its application might be useful in other assays such as polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) for the detection of SA (39, 158, 69).
Separated SA from the blood was detected with a FISH and a LISH assay (Chapter
5). The LISH assay visualized the SA with TGLM which, unlike the FISH assay,
suppressed most of the background autofluorescence signal from the blood debris that
remained. A previous study detected viruses labeled with europium (Eu3+) chelates
using an in situ assay and visualized with TGLM, but this ran over-night (149). Unlike
the assay used in this project, it did not use directly conjugated oligonucleotide probes
to detect the clinically important bacteria SA in two hours.
It was not possible to apply all the newly developed FISH techniques at the same
time. The express FISH assay could not be completed in 24 minutes without the en-
zyme lysostaphin (4). Similarly, the two-step permeabilization FISH assay (2) required
the enzyme lysostaphin (4) and could not be completed in 24 minutes (3). Labeling
of europium probes with a LISH assay was not possible with the urea-NaCl based
hybridization reagents (5) and required formamide.
107
Future research directions
The research described in this thesis is ongoing and could take several directions.
1. There is a need to test the newly developed FISH techniques for SA in clinical
settings (40, 33). This is entirely feasible. As a first step these new techniques
could be used in parallel with the existing conventional FISH techniques. This
was shown to be practical as conventional FISH techniques were used as controls
(32) in this current project. It is not expected that the FISH assays would be
less accurate than the conventional FISH techniques used in other studies as they
performed as well as a control (32) with SA collected from whole-blood (Chapter
5).
2. There is also a need to test the new FISH techniques for SA with other pathogens
often detected in clinical microbiology (64). Since the detection of SA with
FISH is more complex, it may be expected that the new methods would be
compatible with these other types of pathogens (88, 52). If tested, a reduction
in the permeabilization treatment would be needed as these other pathogens are
usually more sensitive than SA to such treatment (32). Some of the new FISH
methods might also be applicable and useful with flow-cytometric visualization
(157, 105, 34, 35).
3. The new FISH techniques for SA were confined to the detection of SA with a
single probe since all SA probes target the same overlapping sequence of the
SA 16S rRNA (1). A probe sequence (KT26-1002: 5- AAGGCTCTATCTCTA-
GAGTTGTC -3) found to have a high binding affinity to SA, but not overlapping
with other probes, could be used simultaneously with an established probe for
SA (40). Although the probe also binds to Staphylococcus haemolyticus, it would
be more specific than the Staphy probe which binds to most Staphylococci (40).
4. Probes that target 18S or 23S rRNA could be tested for specificity to SA. Al-
though not as well documented as 16S rRNA, 23S rRNA may prove to have
108 Conclusion
sequences that have a high accuracy and affinity to SA or to S. epidermidis
(167).
5. It is also possible to apply the newly enhanced FISH techniques directly to short-
turnaround blood cultures to determine the identity and antibiotic susceptibility
of pathogens (107, 35). The SA separation from whole-blood was accurate and
did not inactivate the SA. Cultures of this SA could be performed with and
without antibiotics and FISH used to determine the susceptibility of the strain
(107, 35).
6. Specimens other than blood remain to be tested directly with the enhanced FISH
techniques. For example, intravenous and intra-arterial catheters are a significant
focus of infection and are a common cause of septicemia (168). The density of
the SA at these foci is high enough for direct testing with FISH, because they can
act as reservoirs for SA (19). Possibly identification of SA and other microbes of
catheter specimens could potentially be completed within an hour of collection
using the new FISH methods developed in this project.
Since peptide nucleic acid (PNA) probes are expensive (Advandx, AC005), they
were not investigated in this project. However, with the recent expiry of the original
patent (108), it would be expected that PNA probes would become more affordable.
A significant advantage of PNA probes is that SA can be detected without first having
to be permeabilized (102). With this step omitted, it becomes possible to combine
the remaining steps in the FISH procedure into one step, thus greatly simplifying and
shortening the assay (106).
A one step FISH assay could be applied to the detection of SA separated from the
blood (this study) of sepsis patients and grown in rapid blood cultures (137), some
of which contain antibiotics (107, 35). Strains of SA could be identified and their
antibiotic susceptibility ascertained the same day as blood-collection with a one-step
PNA FISH assay and an automated flow cytometer (105, 35) that could also be time-
resolved (169, 170).
AAppendix A: Other publications that
emerged from the thesis
Appendix A is composed of two sections. Each of these sections was published in a
peer reviewed journal and included as such. In the first section, the FISH methodology
of two chronic rhinosinusitis studies by Foreman et al. (129, 128) were assessed in
light of the new FISH methodology developed in this project: Lawson TS, Connally
RE, Vemulpad S, Piper JA. In reference to targeted imaging modality selection for
bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis and different biofilms, different disease? a
clinical outcomes study. Laryngoscope 2011;121:2043-2044 (6). In the next section,
the FISH method of the blood-culture study by Wang (40) was assessed, also in light
of the findings of the project: Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, Piper JA. The
simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylococcus species in blood cultures
using fluorescence in situ hybridization: A comment. Med Princ Pract 2011;20:390-391
(7). Foreman et al. (171) and Wang (7) have given permission for their response to be
included in this thesis.
109
The LaryngoscopeVC 2011 The American Laryngological,Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Letter to the Editor
In Reference to Targeted Imaging Modality Selection for BacterialBiofilms in Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Different Biofilms,Different Disease? A Clinical Outcomes Study
Dear Editor:
We read with interest two recent reports on biofilmsin chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) by Foreman et al.1 andForeman and Wormald.2 We agree with the authors thatfuture studies of species-specific biofilms such as Staphy-lococcus aureus would be an effective approach toidentifying CRS patients who may progress poorly aftersurgery.2 Thus, we will limit our comments to the meth-odologies used to detect biofilms with S aureus.
In Foreman et al.,1 the authors astutely adoptedtwo assays, LIVE/DEAD BacLight (Invitrogen, Carlsbad,CA) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (PNAFISH; AdvanDx, Woburn, MA), in parallel with confocallaser scanning microscopy (CLSM) to detect CRS bio-films. The emphasis by the authors on testing specimenswith complementary assays is welcome, but we questionwhy other techniques were not considered. Hematoxylin-eosin staining has reliably detected biofilm in CRSpatients in parallel with FISH.3 Gram staining has eval-uated CRS biofilms with FISH in conjunction withculturing to determine viability.4 The authors mentionedthe necessity of CLSM for biofilm analysis.1 We remarkthat if detection rather than analysis is the aim of thestudy, an epifluorescent microscope with an adjustablestage would be sufficient and less costly.5
For both studies,1,2 a FISH kit (AdvanDx) was runto identify microbes in the CRS biofilms. A kit is conven-ient but can be limiting. Because it is commercial, theFISH method was relatively short on detail; the fixationalcohol, probe sequences, fluorophores, and number ofprobes applied simultaneously were not stated andtherefore were difficult to evaluate. For a larger cohort ofpatients, the cost of a kit can be prohibitive (KT005;AdvanDx,). We remark that the efficacy of AdvanDx FISHwas confirmed with positive blood cultures6 of S aureus,but not with biofilm, intramucosal, and intracellularS aureus.7 The authors commented that they anticipatedwhat microbes were present before testing and used a lim-ited number of probes.1,2 We note that a study, similar toSwidsinski et al.,8 has yet to be done with CRS biofilms tocomprehensively determine their flora.
Differentiating between S aureus in biofilm or inplanktonic form may not be as straightforward as theauthors implied. A more rigorous criterion for detection9
may be required as planktonic S aureus regularly
adheres and clumps.10 We found this was further exas-perated by the alcohol-fixation step in FISH. The authors’reliance on a less intense ‘‘blush’’ of autofluorescence sur-rounding the microbes to represent the matrix of thebiofilm1 was suggestive, but may not confirm the pres-ence of biofilm. Other assays could be used in tandemwith BacLight and FISH to confirm S aureus bio-films.4,10,11 We concede that some of these confirmatoryassays are problematic, as CRS patients commonly yieldnegative sinus cultures.12 We also note that the sensitiv-ity and specificity of the BacLight and FISH were nottested in the studies against positive controls of biofilmproducing S aureus strains.1,2
In Foreman et al.,1 the authors recognized theinability to process a single sample with both BacLightand FISH assays. We agree it would be beneficial if bio-films could be visualized and species identified withinthe same specimen. The potential surface area for eachspecimen would be increased13 and the disparitybetween different assays reduced.1 To address this, wewere surprised that the nucleic acid stains DAPI(D9542; Sigma, St. Louis, MO) or Hoechst (94403;Sigma,) were not used with the BacLight or FISHassay.8 We recognize that a limitation of multiple stain-ing is the potential to remove a fraction of any biofilmpresent.14 Nevertheless, we are not aware of a CRS bio-film study that has taken advantage of combining DAPI,FISH probes at 488 nm excitation, and wheat germagglutinin conjugated to Alexa Fluor at 555 nm(W32464; Invitrogen).4 Such an assay cannot test for vi-ability, but could visualize the majority of microbespresent, identify the species of microbe, and positivelydelineate the biofilm4 within a single field of view.
Typically, CRS biofilm studies harvest sinonasalmucosa surgically from the ethmoid cavity.1,2 The confir-mation in Foreman and Wormald2 that culturescollected at the same time as surgery predicted postin-fection, suggest a role for nonsurgical tests of S aureusbiofilm.15,16 We observed that Keen et al.17 reported col-lecting specimens from nasal bottles and identifyingS aureus biofilms, and that Foreman et al.1 and Fore-man and Wormald2 prepared tissue for biofilm testingby washing to remove planktonic bacteria. It may be in-formative to test for S aureus biofilms suspensions insuch a wash directly11 or indirectly, by testing washcontaminants for strains of S aureus that produce
Laryngoscope 121: September 2011
2043
110 Appendix A: Other publications that emerged from the thesis
A.1 In reference to targeted imaging modality selection for bacterial biofilms
in CRS and different biofilms, different disease?
biofilms.4,10,11 We congratulate the authors on increasingour understanding of the role of biofilm with S aureusin CRS.
THOMAS LAWSON
RUSSELL CONNALLY
SUBRAMANYAM VEMULPAD
JAMES PIPER
Macquarie UniversitySydney, Australia
BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Foreman A, Singhal D, Psaltis AJ, et al. Targeted imaging modality selec-
tion for bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2010;120:427–431.
2. Foreman A, Wormald PJ. Different biofilms, different disease? A clinicaloutcomes study. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1701–1706.
3. Hochstim CJ, Masood R, Rice DH. Biofilm and persistent inflammationin endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;143:697–698.
4. Kania RE, Lamers GE, Vonk MJ, et al. Characterization of mucosal bio-films on human adenoid tissues. Laryngoscope 2008;118:128–134.
5. Corriveau MN, Zhang N, Holtappels G, et al. Detection of Staphylococcusaureus in nasal tissue with peptide nucleic acid-fluorescence in situhybridization. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:461–465.
6. Gonzalez V, Padilla E, Gimenez M, et al. Rapid diagnosis of Staphylococ-cus aureus bacteremia using S. aureus PNA FISH. Eur J Clin MicrobiolInfect Dis 2004;23:396–398.
7. Clement S, Vaudaux P, Francois P, et al. Evidence of an intracellular res-ervoir in the nasal mucosa of patients with recurrent Staphylococcusaureus rhinosinusitis. J Infect Dis 2005;192:1023–1028.
8. Swidsinski A, Goktas O, Bessler C, et al. Spatial organisation of micro-biota in quiescent adenoiditis and tonsillitis. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:253–260.
9. Parsek MR, Singh PK. Bacterial biofilms: an emerging link to diseasepathogenesis. Annu Rev Microbiol 2003;57:677–701.
10. Kouidhi B, Zmantar T, Hentati H, et al. Cell surface hydrophobicity, bio-film formation, adhesives properties and molecular detection of adhesinsgenes in Staphylococcus aureus associated to dental caries. MicrobPathog 2010;49:14–22.
11. Oliveira M, Bexiga R, Nunes SF, et al. Biofilm-forming ability profiling ofStaphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis mastitis isolates.Vet Microbiol 2006;118:133–140.
12. Sanderson AR, Leid JG, Hunsaker D. Bacterial biofilms on the sinus mu-cosa of human subjects with chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1121–1126.
13. Hoa M, Tomovic S, Nistico L, et al. Identification of adenoid biofilms withmiddle ear pathogens in otitis-prone children utilizing SEM and FISH.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009;73:1242–1248.
14. Hall-Stoodley L, Hu FZ, Gieseke A, et al. Direct detection of bacterial bio-films on the middle-ear mucosa of children with chronic otitis media.JAMA 2006;296:202–211.
15. Veeh RH, Shirtliff ME, Petik JR, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aur-eus biofilm on tampons and menses components. J Infect Dis 2003;188:519–530.
16. Homoe P, Bjarnsholt T, Wessman M, et al. Morphological evidence of bio-film formation in greenlanders with chronic suppurative otitis media.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:1533–1538.
17. Keen M, Foreman A, Wormald PJ. The clinical significance of nasal irriga-tion bottle contamination. Laryngoscope 2010;120:2110–2114.
Laryngoscope 121: September 2011
2044
A.1 In reference to targeted imaging modality selection forbacterial biofilms in CRS and different biofilms, different disease?111
The LaryngoscopeVC 2011 The American Laryngological,Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Letter to the Editor
In Response to Targeted Imaging Modality Selection for BacterialBiofilms in Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Different Biofilms, DifferentDisease? A Clinical Outcomes Study
Dear Editor,
We acknowledge Lawson et al.’s synthesis of ourrecent work investigating the role of biofilms in chronicrhinosinusitis (CRS), which in essence highlights therelative infancy of this field of research. This is partic-ularly true when compared with the current depth ofknowledge surrounding other biofilm-associated dis-eases such as otitis media with effusion. Clearly, thereis much work still to be done before the role of biofilmsin CRS is completely understood. Staphylococcus aureusdemonstrates an extraordinary repertoire of virulencefactors that enable it to both attack and evade thehuman host, of which biofilm formation is but one. Thevarious roles of planktonic, intracellular, small colonyvariant, and biofilm forms of S. aureus are still to beclearly defined, and our current understanding of thisdisease does not allow us to differentiate the pathologicimportance of each. Further study in this area coupledwith nucleic acid stains, as suggested by Lawson et al.and previously performed by Corriveau et al.,1 to local-ize the bacterial communities relative to the sinonasalepithelium may shed light on the multiplicity of exis-tence many bacteria demonstrate in human disease.
We are firm believers in the biofilm definitions pro-posed by Costerton et al.,2 and use this to guide us indelineating planktonic and biofilm S. aureus, which webelieve is possible by demonstrating adherent bacteria(the washing step removes planktonic clones) that con-gregate in a three-dimensional structure (in our opinion,replacement of the confocal microscope with an epifluor-escent microscope does not allow appreciation of thecharacteristic three-dimensional structure) and surroundthemselves with an exopolysaccharide matrix (the lessintense ‘‘blush’’). This has been successfully applied inboth human and animal work from our department.3–5
Furthermore, although not expressly stated in our arti-cle, S. aureus biofilms do conform to at least the firstfive out of six ‘‘rigorous’’ criteria set out by Parsek andSingh6 for determining a biofilm infection (we are yet toinvestigate the final criteria, colocalizing bacterial cellclusters with host inflammatory cells), highlighting theutility of current diagnostic techniques.
Clearly, there are multiple methods for detectingbiofilms in surgical specimens, of which only two, FISHand BacLight, were used in the studies in question.7,8 It
is important to recognize that all microscopic techniquesrely on the identification of a morphologic appearancecharacteristic of biofilm formation, which in itself is apotentially flawed diagnostic approach. H&E stainingand Gram staining may well complement our currentlyused techniques, but neither could overcome this defi-ciency. The only truly reliable method of detectingbiofilm bacteria will be to demonstrate the genotypicchanges that herald a transition to the biofilm pheno-type. This is not currently possible.
We accept that the requirement for preselection ofFISH probes is a limitation of our species-specific biofilmdiagnostic work to date. Molecular diagnostics have sincebeen employed in CRS patients, both by our group(unpublished data) and others,9 confirming the relativeabundance of S. aureus in this group of patients. The roleof anaerobic bacteria has been raised by molecular stud-ies, although not specifically investigated in CRS as yet.Finally, we would like to draw the attention of the read-ership to another of our articles investigating biofilms inCRS,10 which answers a number of the other methodo-logic queries raised by Lawson et al. Furthermore, it doesseem somewhat contradictory that on one hand the use ofconfocal microscopy would be criticized as being superflu-ous and adding to the complexity of the protocol, whereasthe use of a ‘‘methodology-simplifier’’ such as a commer-cially available FISH kit is also questioned.
In summary, the parallel development of biofilmdiagnostic modalities and our understanding of theirrole in CRS represent an exciting time for Rhinologyresearchers. Open discussion of and analysis of the cur-rent literature will undoubtedly enhance the quality andvalidity of future endeavors in this area.
DR. ANDREW FOREMAN, BMBS (Hons)PETER-JOHN WORMALD, MD
Department of Surgery–Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryUniversity of Adelaide and Flinders University
Adelaide, Australia
BIBLIOGRAPY1. Corriveau MN, Zhang N, Holtappels G, Van Roy N, Bachert C. Detection
of Staphylococcus aureus in nasal tissue with peptide nucleic acid-fluo-rescence in situ hybridization. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:461–465.
2. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a commoncause of persistent infections. Science 1999;284:1318–1322.
Laryngoscope 121: September 2011 Foreman: Letter to the Editor
2045
112 Appendix A: Other publications that emerged from the thesis
3. Ha KR, Psaltis AJ, Tan L, Wormald PJ. A sheep model for thestudy of biofilms in rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol 2007;21:339–345.
4. Psaltis AJ, Ha KR, Beule AG, Tan LW, Wormald PJ. Confocal scanninglaser microscopy evidence of biofilms in patients with chronic rhinosinu-sitis. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1302–1306.
5. Singhal D, Psaltis AJ, Foreman A, Wormald PJ. The impact of biofilms onoutcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:169–174.
6. Parsek MR, Singh PK. Bacterial biofilms: an emerging link to diseasepathogenesis. Annu Rev Microbiol 2003;57:677–701.
7. Foreman A, Singhal D, Psaltis AJ, Wormald PJ. Targeted imaging modal-ity selection for bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngo-scope 2010;120:427–431.
8. Foreman A, Wormald P. Different biofilms, different disease? A clinicaloutcomes study. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1701–1706.
9. Stephenson MF, Mfuna L, Dowd SE, et al. Molecular characterization ofthe polymicrobial flora in chronic rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngol HeadNeck Surg 2010;39:182–187.
10. Foreman A, Psaltis AJ, Tan LW, Wormald PJ. Characterization of bacterialand fungal biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:556–561.
Laryngoscope 121: September 2011 Foreman: Letter to the Editor
2046
A.1 In reference to targeted imaging modality selection forbacterial biofilms in CRS and different biofilms, different disease?113
Fax +41 61 306 12 34E-Mail karger@karger.chwww.karger.com
Letter to the Editor
The author modified the commonly accepted FISH protocol [2–4] . It might have been simpler, however, to only adjust the hy-bridization buffer’s formamide concentration and the washing buffer’s NaCl concentrations rather than increasing the incuba-tion temperature to 50 ° C as well [6] . Using 46 ° C with a 0.9 M NaCl hybridization buffer has the advantage of allowing stringency to be optimized to formamide concentrations between 0 and 60% for most probes [2–4, 6] . Similarly, a 48 ° C washing buffer step allows stringency to be optimized to NaCl concentrations between 0.014 and 0.9 M for most probes [3, 4, 6] . FISH protocol turnaround is more likely to be shortened by effective specimen preparation and permeabilization rather than stringency adjustments [4] .
We found that the fluorescein isothiocyanate fluorophore,and to a lesser extent Cy3, suffers from poor signal, bleaching and spectral overlap. In our experience, Alexa Fluor � (Invitrogen) or DyLight Fluor � (Thermo Fisher) probes are superior in signal strength, photostability and spectral flexibility. For instance,fluorescence output could be doubled and potential photobleach-ing and bleed-through halved if fluorescein isothiocyanate and Cy3 were replaced with Alexa Fluor 488 and Alexa Fluor 555 flu-orophores (Invitrogen).
We consider the dual-probe FISH technique described by Wang [1] a valuable addition to the detection of S. aureus which can be further enhanced.
Wang [1] reported a useful slide-based fluorescence in situ hy-bridization (FISH) protocol that involved applying two oligonu-cleotides with different fluorophores simultaneously. Compared to applying the Staphylococcus aureus probe [2] alone, the author demonstrated that using it in conjunction with the Staphylococcus spp. probe [3] increased the sensitivity and specificity of S. aureus detection and differentiation from coagulase-negative staphylo-cocci (CoNS) [1] . We note that the multicolor dual-probe FISH method took at least 2 h to finish. However, it is possible to detect S. aureus with FISH in less than 1 h [4] .
The author described difficulties in cell adhesion to the slides. We found that slides spotted with agarose [5] reduced cell loss and that S. aureus permeabilization responds better to methanol than ethanol [4] . Spotting specimens onto a 10-well diagnostic glass slide (Menzel-Gläser, X1XER308B) rather than smearing was also more effective. A greater concentration of cells was heat-fixed to a smaller slide area, less reagents were needed throughout the FISH protocol and more accurate comparisons could be made be-tween specimens and FISH treatments on the same slide.
The lysis enzyme conditions stated may have resulted in the permeabilization time of at least 20 min. We observe that theoptimal permeabilization temperature is not 30 ° C but approxi-mately 35 ° C for lysozyme (Sigma, L6876) and 45 ° C for lysostaph-in (Sigma, L4402). If specimens were fixed with methanol and then permeabilized at 46 ° C with a lysozyme and lysostaphin mix-ture, the permeabilization time can be shortened to 5 min [4] .
We agree that using a Staphylococcus spp. and an S. aureus probe together may be the most robust probe option as the S. au-reus and CoNS 16S rRNA are conserved, but we observe that an untested CoNS probe is available (CoNS 16S1442: 5 � -CGACG-GCTAGCTCCAAATGGTTACT-3 � ). The EUB338 probe is a nec-essary control as it confirms if the protocol is effective, but we believe that the non-EUB338 probe is not necessary; we are not aware of any instances where it has failed as a negative control in the detection of staphylococci with FISH [2, 3, 5] .
Received: November 1, 2010
Accepted: November 29, 2010
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel1011–7571/11/0204–0390$38.00/0
Accessible online at:www.karger.com/mpp
Med Princ Pract 2011;20:390–391
DOI: 10.1159/000324875
The Simultaneous Detection and Differentiation
of Staphylococcus Species in Blood Cultures Using
Fluorescence in situ Hybridization: A Comment
Thomas S. Lawson a , Russell E. Connally a , Jon R. Iredell b ,
James A. Piper a
a Department of Physics, Macquarie University, and b Centre
for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital,
Sydney, N.S.W., Australia
References
1 Wang P: Simultaneous detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Med Princ Pract 2010; 19: 218–221.
2 Kempf VA, Trebesius K, Autenrieth IB: Fluorescent in situ hybridiza-tion allows rapid identification of microorganisms in blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 830–838.
3 Trebesius K, Leitritz L, Adler K, Schubert S, Autenrieth IB, Heesemann J: Culture independent and rapid identification of bacterial pathogens in necrotising fasciitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome byfluorescence in situ hybridisation. Med Microbiol Immunol 2000; 188: 169–175.
4 Poppert S, Riecker M, Wellinghausen N, Frickmann H, Essig A: Accel-erated identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures by a modified fluorescence in situ hybridization procedure. J Med Micro-biol 2010; 59: 65–68.
5 Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R: Fluorescence in situ hybridiza-tion and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identification of marine bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002; 68: 3094–3101.
6 Manz W, Amann R, Ludwig W, Wagner M, Schleifer KH: Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes for the major subclasses of proteobacte-ria: problems and solutions. Syst Appl Microbiol 1992; 15: 593–600.
Thomas S. Lawson Department of Physics , Macquarie University Sydney, NSW 2109 (Australia) Tel. +61 2 9850 8938, E-Mail tomxlawson @ gmail.com
114 Appendix A: Other publications that emerged from the thesis
A.2 The simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylococcus species in
blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization
Letter to the Editor Med Princ Pract 2011;20:390–391 391
I would like to thank Lawson et al. for providing an excellent opinion regarding the article ‘Simultaneous detection and differ-entiation of Staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluo-rescence in situ hybridization’ [1]. I agree that heat fixation, and pretreatment at 46 ° C with a lysozyme and lysostaphin mixture is helpful for permeabilization.
As for the probe, it is difficult to design a single probe to cover all CoNS species. An alternative strategy could be to use two spe-cific probes that target different conserved sequences (data not published). Non-EUB338 is necessary to detect nonspecific bind-ing of oligonucleotides [2], although it seldom occurs to clinical specimens. The FISH protocol was a modification of that estab-lished by Jansen et al. [3], in which the cell wall of Staphylococcus aureus was rigid, such that an intensive hybridization signal could be taken into account as a priority rather than a turnaround time.
No doubt, Alexa Fluor � (Invitrogen) or DyLight Fluor � (Ther-mo Fisher) probes are superior to fluorescein isothiocyanate and
Cy3 in terms of signal strength; however, the expensive cost hin-ders its wide application in routine clinical laboratory.
There is room for enhancement in the permeabilization and hybridization protocol. I appreciate the effort made by the authors to share their experiences concerning the FISH protocol.
References 1 Wang P: Simultaneous detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus
species in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Med Princ Pract 2010; 19: 218–221.
2 Kempf VA, Trebesius K, Autenrieth IB: Fluorescent in situ hybridiza-tion allows rapid identification of microorganisms in blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 830–838.
3 Jansen GJ, Mooibroek M, Idema J, Harmsen HJ, Welling GW, Degener JE: Rapid identification of bacteria in blood cultures by using fluores-cently labeled oligonucleotide probes. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 814–817.
Pei WangDepartment of Laboratory MedicineThe First People’s Hospital of JingmenJingmen 448000 (China)Tel. +86 724 230 5781, E-Mail peiwwien @ yahoo.com
Reply
Pei Wang
Division of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory
Medicine, The First People’s Hospital of Jingmen, Jingmen,
China
A.2 The simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylococcusspecies in blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization 115
116 Appendix A: Other publications that emerged from the thesis
BAppendix B: Analysis of common
oligonucleotides used in the detection of S.
aureus with FISH
Oligonucleotides were analyzed using mathFISH (mathfish.cee.wisc.edu) (92).
EUB338 16S337: 5’- GCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT -3’ (157)
Listing B.1: EUB338 alignment with S. aureus and S. epidermidis 16S rRNA
EUB338 alignment with S. aureus:
....................................
EUB338: TGAGGATGCCCTCCGTCG5 ’
..................||||||||||||||||||
S. aureus: ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGC3 ’
....................................
EUB338 alignment with S. epidermidis:
....................................
EUB338: 3’TGAGGATGCCCTCCGTCG5 ’
..................||||||||||||||||||
S. epidermidis: 5’ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGC3 ’
....................................
117
118Appendix B: Analysis of common oligonucleotides used in the
detection of S. aureus with FISH
Table B.1: The calculated binding affinity of the probe EUB338 to S. aureus and S.epidermidis.
∆G (kcal/mol) S. aureus S. epidermidis ∆value∗
∆Go1† -24.5 -24.5 0.00
∆Go2‡ -1.5 -1.5 NA
∆Go3§ -5.3 -5.3 0.00
∆Gooverall
‖ -17.7 -17.7 0.00
[FA]m⊕ (%) 58.0 58.0 0.00
Hybridization Efficiencyd 1.0000 1.0000 0.00
∗ Values for S. epidermidis−Values for S. aureus.† ∆Go
1 indicates the binding affinity of the DNA probe to its RNA target.‡ ∆Go
2 indicates the binding affinity of the DNA probe to itself.§ ∆Go
3. indicates the binding affinity of the RNA target to itself.‖ ∆Go
overall indicates the binding affinity of the DNA probe to its RNA target giventhe competing ∆Go
1 and ∆Go2 reactions.
⊕ The formamide concentration required to anneal or dissociation of 50% of the DNAprobe from its RNA target given 1 µM probe, 0.9 M NaCl in the buffer and 47 ◦Cincubation.d At 0% formamide.
119
KT18 16S68: 5’- GCAAGCTTCTCGTCCGTT -3’ (1)
Listing B.2: KT18-16S68 alignment with S. aureus and S. epidermidis 16S rRNA
KT18 -16S68 alignment with S. aureus:
....................................
....KT18 -16 S68: 3’TTGCCTGCTCTTCGAACG5 ’
..................||||||||||||||||||
S. epidermidis: 5’AACGGACGAGAAGCTTGC3 ’
....................................
KT18 -16S68 alignment with S. epidermidis:
.....................C......T.......
KT18 -16S68: 3’TTG.CTGCTC.TCGAACG5 ’
..................|||.||||||.|||||||
S. epidermidis: 5’AAC.GACGAG.AGCTTGC3 ’
.....................A......G.......
Table B.2: The calculated binding affinity of the probe KT18-16S68 to S. aureus andS. epidermidis.
∆G (kcal/mol) S. aureus S. epidermidis ∆value
∆Go1 -20.8 -14.2 6.60
∆Go2 1.7 1.7 NA
∆Go3 -5.9 -8.2 -2.30
∆Gooverall -14.8 -5.9 8.90
[FA]m (%) 35.3 -27.8 -63.10
Hybridization Efficiency 0.9999 0.0110 -0.99
120Appendix B: Analysis of common oligonucleotides used in the
detection of S. aureus with FISH
STAAUR 16S69: 5’- GAAGCAAGCTTCTCGTCCG -3’ (87)
Listing B.3: Staaur alignment with S. aureus and S. epidermidis 16S rRNA
Staaur alignment with S. aureus:
.....................................
Staaur: 3’GCCTGCTCTTCGAACGAAG5 ’
..................|||||||||||||||||||
S. aureus: 5’CGGACGAGAAGCTTGCTTC3 ’
.....................................
Staaur alignment with S. epidermidis:
...................C......T........A.
Staaur: 3’G.CTGCTC.TCGAACGA.G5’
..................|.||||||.||||||||.|
S. epidermidis: 5’C.GACGAG.AGCTTGCT.C3’
...................A......G........C.
Table B.3: The calculated binding affinity of the FISH probe Staaur to S. aureus andS. epidermidis.
∆G (kcal/mol) S. aureus S. epidermidis ∆value
∆Go1 -19.8 -14.7 5.10
∆Go2 -0.4 -0.4 NA
∆Go3 -7.0 -8.2 -1.20
∆Gooverall -12.1 -5.8 6.30
[FA]m (%) 23.7 -50.7 -74.40
Hybridization Efficiency 0.9944 0.0090 -0.99
121
STAPHY 16S697 5’-TCCTCCATATCTCTGCGC-3’ (87)
Listing B.4: Staphy alignment with S. aureus and S. epidermidis 16S rRNA
Staphy alignment with S. aureus:
...............................
Staphy: 3’CGCGTCTCTATACCTCCT5 ’
.............||||||||||||||||||
S. aureus: 5’GCGCAGAGATATGGAGGA3 ’
...............................
Staphy alignment with E. coli:
................G......T.......
Staphy: 3’CGC.TCTCTA.ACCTCCT5 ’
.............|||.||||||.|||||||
E. coli: 5’GCG.AGAGAT.TGGAGGA3 ’
................T......C.......
Table B.4: The calculated binding affinity of the FISH probe Staphy to S. aureus andS. epidermidis.
∆G (kcal/mol) S. aureus E. coli ∆value
∆Go1 -21.1 -16.2 4.90
∆Go2 2.1 2.1 NA
∆Go3 -3.7 -2.9 0.80
∆Gooverall -17.4 -13.3 4.10
[FA]m (%) 43.7 21.8 -21.90
Hybridization Efficiency 1.0000 0.9991 -0.00
122Appendix B: Analysis of common oligonucleotides used in the
detection of S. aureus with FISH
List of abbreviations
ANOVA Analysis of variance
C Cytosine
CA -MRSA Community -acquired MRSA
CARD -FISH Catalyzed reporter deposition FISH
CoNS Coagulase -negative staphylococci
CRS Chronic rhinosinusitis
Cy3 Cyanine dye excited at 550 nm
Cy5 Cyanine dye excited at 650 nm
DAPI 4’,6-diamidino -2- phenylindole dye excited
at 358 nm
Delta G Gibbs binding potential or free energy values
DEPC Diethylpyrocarbonate
DIC Differential interference and contrast
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
EC E. coli
EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
Eu3+ Europium ion excited at 350 nm
FA Formamide
FEB Fluorescence enhancing buffer
FISH Fluorescent in situ hybridisation
FISH Fluorescence in situ hybridization
FISH Fluorescent in situ hybridization
FITC Fluorescein isothiocyanate dye excited
at 495 nm
FN False negative
FP False positive
G Guanine
GALD Gated auto -synchronous luminescence detector
HA -MRSA Hospital -acquired MRSA
HE Hybridization efficiency
IgG Immunoglobulin G antibody
ISH In situ hybridization
LISH Luminescence in situ hybridization
Ln3+ Lanthanide trivalent ions Eu, Dy, Sm and Tb
LNA Locked nucleic acid
M Moles
MC&S Microscopy , culturing and susceptibility
Min Minutes
MQ water Milli -Q water
MRSA Methicillin -resistant Staphylococcus aureus
MSSA Methicillin -sensitive Staphylococcus aureus
123
124 List of abbreviations
NaCl Sodium chloride
NaOH Sodium hydroxide
Oligo Oligonucleotide
PBP2 Penicillin -Binding Protein 2 Gene
PBS Phosphate buffered saline
PCR Polymerase chain reaction
PNA Peptide nucleic acid
RNA Ribonucleic acid
rRNA Ribosomal RNA
S/N Signal to noise ratio
SA S. aureus
SAB Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia
S. aureus Staphylococcus aureus
SCCmecA Staphylococcal cassette chromosome
SDS Sodium dodecyl sulfate
SE S. epidermidis
S. epidermidis Staphylococcus epidermidis
SSC Sodium citrate buffer
TE buffer Tris -HCl and EDTA buffer
TGLM Time -gated luminescence microscopy
TIFF Tagged Image File Format
Tm Melting temperature
TN True negative
TP True positive
Tris -HCl Tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane hydrochloric acid
v/v Volume by volume
w/v Weight by volume
References
1. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, et al. In silico evaluation and testing
of fluorescence in situ hybridization 16S rRNA probes for Staphylococcus aureus.
Lab Med 2011;42:587–591. vii, 17, 24, 27, 40, 45, 51, 72, 91, 92, 103, 104, 107,
119
2. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, et al. Optimization of a two-step per-
meabilization fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for the detection of
Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Lab Anal 2011;25:359–365. vii, 17, 24, 31, 34, 40,
44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 72, 91, 94, 103, 104, 105, 106
3. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, et al. Express fluorescence in situ hy-
bridization methods for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus. Clin lab 2011;
57:789–794. vii, 17, 24, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 72, 90, 104, 105, 106
4. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus
with a fluorescence in situ hybridization that does not require lysostaphin. J Clin
Lab Anal 2011;25:142–147. vii, 18, 24, 44, 47, 72, 75, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 105, 106
5. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, et al. Dimethyl formamide-free, urea-
NaCl fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay for Staphylococcus aureus.
Lett Appl Microbiol 2012;10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03197.x:(in press). vii,
25, 44, 45, 47, 73, 75, 86, 101, 105, 106
6. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Vemulpad S, et al. In reference to targeted imag-
ing modality selection for bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis and differ-
ent biofilms, different disease? a clinical outcomes study. Laryngoscope 2011;
121:2043–2044. vii, 25, 109
7. Lawson TS, Connally RE, Iredell JR, et al. The simultaneous detection and
differentiation of staphylococcus species in blood cultures using fluorescence in
situ hybridization: A comment. Med Princ Pract 2011;20:390–391. viii, 25, 109
125
126 References
8. Hamey LGC, Connally RE, Yen SW, et al. Luminescent microspheres resolved
from strong background on an automated Time-Gated luminescence microscopy
workstation. DICTA 2009 2009;1:223–228. viii
9. Wang L, Barrett J. Control and prevention of MRSA infections. Methods Mol
Biol 2007;391:209–225. 1, 4
10. Aboud Z, Peters T. Early recognition and management of sepsis at west middlesex
university hospital. Crit Care 2009;13:32. 1, 3, 4
11. Edmond K, Zaidi A. New approaches to preventing, diagnosing, and treating
neonatal sepsis. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000213. 1
12. Schmidlin M, Alt M, Vogel G, et al. Contaminations of laboratory surfaces with
Staphylococcus aureus are affected by the carrier status of laboratory staff. J Appl
Microbiol 2010;109:1284–1293. 1, 3
13. Palavecino E, et al. Clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory aspects of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Methods Mol Biol
2007;391:1–19. 1, 3
14. Gosbell IB, Barbagiannakos T, Neville SA, et al. Non-multiresistant methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in sydney, australia: emergence of
EMRSA-15, oceania, queensland and western australian MRSA strains. Pathology
2006;38:239–244. 1
15. Schulz M, Nonnenmacher C, Mutters R. Cost-effectiveness of rapid MRSA screen-
ing in surgical patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:1291–1296. 1
16. Haji-Michael P, Dodgson K, Kaczmarski E. Guidelines for the management of
sepsis (including neutropenic sepsis). christie.nhs.uk 2010. 1, 4, 5
17. LaRosa S. Prevalence and incidence. clevelandclinicmeded.com 2010. 1, 4
References 127
18. Venkatesh M, Flores A, Luna RA, et al. Molecular microbiological methods in
the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2010;8:1037–1048.
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17
19. Krimmer V, Merkert H, Eiff CV, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus and
Staphylococcus epidermidis in clinical samples by 16S rRNA-directed in situ hy-
bridization. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:2667–2673. 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, 17, 51, 93,
108
20. Llewelyn M, Cohen J. Diagnosis of infection in sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2001;
27:10–32. 1, 4, 5, 14, 95
21. Nimmo GR. Rapid detection of bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol 2010;101:131. 1, 4,
5, 6, 14
22. Shah A, Gordon NC, Pheel L, et al. Comparison of microscopic, phenotypic
and molecular techniques for the rapid identification and susceptibility testing of
staphylococci from positive blood culture bottles. Crit Care 2009;13:44. 1, 5, 6,
10, 12, 14
23. Munson EL, Diekema DJ, Beekmann SE, et al. Detection and treatment of blood-
stream infection: laboratory reporting and antimicrobial management. J Clin
Microbiol 2003;41:495–497. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14
24. Lever A, Mackenzie I. Sepsis: definition, epidemiology, and diagnosis. Br Med J
2007;335:879–883. 1, 4, 5
25. Dryden M, Andrasevic AT, Bassetti M, et al. A European survey of antibiotic
management of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: current clin-
ical opinion and practice. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010;16:3–30. 1, 3, 4
26. Cohen J, Brun-Buisson C, Torres A, et al. Diagnosis of infection in sepsis: an
evidence-based review. Crit Care Med 2004;32:S466. 1, 4, 6
128 References
27. Brown DFJ, Edwards DI, Hawkey PM, et al. Guidelines for the laboratory di-
agnosis and susceptibility testing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA). J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56:1000–1018. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
28. Mallmann C, Siemoneit S, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization
to improve the diagnosis of endocarditis: a pilot study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010;
16:767–773. 1, 5, 7, 13
29. Bottari B, Ercolini D, Gatti M, et al. Application of FISH technology for micro-
biological analysis: current state and prospects. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2006;
73:485–494. 2, 9
30. Amann R, Fuchs BM. Single-cell identification in microbial communities by im-
proved fluorescence in situ hybridization techniques. Nat Rev Microbiol 2008;
6:339–348. 2, 9, 24
31. Schweickert B, Moter A, Lefmann M, et al. Let them fly or light them up: matrix-
assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrom-
etry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). APMIS 2004;112:856–885. 2,
8
32. Poppert S, Riecker M, Wellinghausen N, et al. Accelerated identification of
Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures by a modified fluorescence in situ hy-
bridization procedure. J Med Microbiol 2010;59:65–68. 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
15, 17, 18, 24, 28, 30, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 72, 95, 105, 107
33. Wu Q, Li Y, Wang M, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization rapidly detects
three different pathogenic bacteria in urinary tract infection samples. J Microbiol
Methods 2010;83:175–178. 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 107
34. Kempf VAJ, Mandle T, Schumacher U, et al. Rapid detection and identifica-
tion of pathogens in blood cultures by fluorescence in situ hybridization and flow
cytometry. Int J Med Mol 2005;295:47–55. 2, 12, 29, 31, 107
References 129
35. Shrestha N, Scalera N, Wilson D, et al. Rapid identification of Staphylococcus
aureus and methicillin resistance by flow cytometry using a peptide nucleic acid
probe. J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:3383–3385. 2, 12, 13, 95, 107, 108
36. Wagner M, Horn M, Daims H. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation for the identifi-
cation and characterisation of prokaryotes. Curr Opin Microbiol 2003;6:302–309.
2, 10, 29, 31
37. Kempf VAJ, Trebesius K, Autenrieth IB. Fluorescent in situ hybridization allows
rapid identification of microorganisms in blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2000;
38:830–838. 2, 10, 13, 16, 18
38. Zwirglmaier K. Detection of prokaryotic cells with fluorescence in situ hybridiza-
tion. Methods Mol Biol 2010;659:349–362. 2, 8, 15, 27
39. Poppert S, Essig A, Stoehr B, et al. Rapid diagnosis of bacterial meningitis by
Real-Time PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization. J Clin Microbiol 2005;
43:3390–3397. 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 88, 106
40. Wang P. Simultaneous detection and differentiation of staphylococcus species in
blood cultures using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Med Princ Pract 2010;
19:218–221. 2, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 42, 72, 95, 107, 109
41. Riedel S, Carroll KC. Blood cultures: key elements for best practices and future
directions. J Infect Chemother 2010;16:301–316. 2, 5, 14
42. Stevens K, Jaykus L. Bacterial separation and concentration from complex sample
matrices: a review. Crit Rev Microbiol 2004;30:7–24. 2, 9, 14, 21
43. Brehm-Stecher B, Young C, Jaykus L, et al. Sample preparation: the forgotten
beginning. J Food Prot 2009;72:1774–1789. 2, 9, 14, 21
44. Moter A, Gobel UB. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for direct visual-
ization of microorganisms. J Microbiol Methods 2000;41:85–112. 2, 8, 9, 15, 17,
19, 27, 88
130 References
45. Zwirglmaier K. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) - the next generation.
FEMS Microbiol Lett 2005;246:151–158. 2, 10, 16, 22, 47, 72, 89, 90, 94
46. Connally RE, Piper JA. Time-Gated luminescence microscopy. Ann N Y Acad
Sci 2008;1130:106–116. 2, 19, 88, 101
47. Hagan A, Zuchner T. Lanthanide-based time-resolved luminescence immunoas-
says. Anal Bioanal Chem 2011;400:1–18. 2, 14, 19, 21, 25, 89
48. Murdoch DR, Greenlees RL. Rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus from
BacT/ALERT blood culture bottles by direct gram stain characteristics. Br Med
J 2004;57:199–201. 2, 5, 8, 9, 28, 48
49. Lagace-Wiens PRS, Alfa MJ, Manickam K, et al. Thermostable DNase is superior
to tube coagulase for direct detection of Staphylococcus aureus in positive blood
cultures. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:3478–3479. 2, 6, 10
50. Hermsen ED, Shull SS, Klepser DG, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of micro-
biologic techniques for differentiating staphylococci directly from blood culture
bottles. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2924–2929. 2, 6, 10, 12, 13
51. Sturm PDJ, Kwa D, Vos FJ, et al. Performance of two tube coagulase methods
for rapid identification of Staphylococcus aureus from blood cultures and their
impact on antimicrobial management. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14:510–513. 2,
6
52. Tavares A, Inacio J, Melo-Cristino J, et al. Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization
for rapid identification of staphylococci in blood culture samples collected in a
portuguese hospital. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3097–3100. 2, 10, 13, 16, 18, 27,
28, 30, 44, 72, 73, 105, 107
53. Hotchkiss R, Karl I. The pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis. N Engl J Med
2003;348:138–150. 3
References 131
54. Parthasarathy P. Outcomes of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Ph.D. thesis,
NUS 2009. 3, 4, 6, 103
55. Collignon P, Nimmo G, Gottlieb T, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia,
Australia. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:554–561. 3, 6, 17, 90, 103
56. Garcia-Lara J, Foster SJ. Anti-Staphylococcus aureus immunotherapy: current
status and prospects. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2009;9:552–557. 3, 7, 8
57. Halablab M, Hijazi S, Fawzi M, et al. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage rate
and associated risk factors in individuals in the community. Epidemiol Infect
2010;138:702–706. 3
58. Millar BC, Loughrey A, Elborn JS, et al. Proposed definitions of community-
associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA). J Hosp Infect
2007;67:109–113. 3
59. Gould I. Costs of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) and its control. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2006;28:379–384. 3
60. Mancini N, Carletti S, Ghidoli N, et al. The era of molecular and other Non-
Culture-Based methods in diagnosis of sepsis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2010;23:235–
251. 4, 5, 10, 14
61. Wasserman E. What can you expect from a microbiology diagnostic service?
CME 2008;26:528–530. 5
62. Kudo M, Matsuo Y, Nakasendo A, et al. Potential clinical benefit of the in situ
hybridization method for the diagnosis of sepsis. J Infect Chemother 2009;15:23–
26. 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 91
63. Shimada J, Hayashi I, Inamatsu T, et al. Clinical trial of in-situ hybridization
method for the rapid diagnosis of sepsis. J Infect Chemother 1999;5:21–31. 5, 11,
13, 14, 91
132 References
64. Gescher DM, Kovacevic D, Schmiedel D, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation
(FISH) accelerates identification of gram-positive cocci in positive blood cultures.
Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008;32:51–59. 5, 10, 11, 27, 28, 30, 73, 107
65. Jukes L, Mikhail J, Bome-Mannathoko N, et al. Rapid differentiation of Staphy-
lococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and other coagulase-negative staphy-
lococci and methicillin susceptibility testing directly from growth positive blood
cultures by multiplex real-time PCR. J Med Microbiol 2010;59:1456–1461. 5, 6,
36
66. Sogaard M, Norgaard M, Schonheyder HC. First notification of positive blood
cultures and the high accuracy of the gram stain report. J Clin Microbiol 2007;
45:1113–1117. 5, 6, 12
67. Kateete DP, Kimani CN, Katabazi FA, et al. Identification of Staphylococcus
aureus : DNase and mannitol salt agar improve the efficiency of the tube coagulase
test. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2010;9:23. 6, 10
68. Holtzman C, Whitney D, Barlam T, et al. Assessment of impact of peptide
nucleic acid fluorescence in situ hybridization for rapid identification of Coagulase-
Negative staphylococci in the absence of antimicrobial stewardship intervention.
J Clin Microbiol 2011;49:1581–1582. 6, 13, 14
69. French GL. Methods for screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
carriage. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009;15:10–16. 6, 106
70. Wellinghausen N, Siegel D, Gebert S, et al. Rapid detection of Staphylococcus
aureus bacteremia and methicillin resistance by real-time PCR in whole blood
samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:1001–1005. 6
71. Mirrett S, Lauer BA, Miller GA, et al. Comparison of acridine orange, methylene
blue, and gram stains for blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 1982;15:562–566. 7
72. Gitai Z. New fluorescence microscopy methods for microbiology: sharper, faster,
and quantitative. Curr Opin Microbiol 2009;12:341–346. 7, 48
References 133
73. Albeanu D, Soucy E, Sato T, et al. LED arrays as cost effective and efficient light
sources for widefield microscopy. PLoS ONE 2008;3:2146. 7
74. Nishimura M, Shimakita T, Matsuzaki T, et al. Automatic counting of FISH-
labeled microbes by an LED illuminated detecting apparatus. Fish Sci 2008;
74:405–410. 7
75. Fazii P, Ciancaglini E, Riario Sforza G. Differential fluorescent staining method
for detection of bacteria in blood cultures, cerebrospinal fluid and other clinical
specimens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2002;21:373–378. 7
76. Gmur R, Luthi-Schaller H. A combined immunofluorescence and fluorescent in
situ hybridization assay for single cell analyses of dental plaque microorganisms.
J Microbiol Methods 2007;69:402–405. 7, 8, 14
77. Clausen CR. Detection of bacterial pathogens in purulent clinical specimens by
immunofluorescence techniques. J Clin Microbiol 1981;13:1119. 7, 8
78. Schellenberg J, Smoragiewicz W, Karska-Wysocki B. A rapid method combining
immunofluorescence and flow cytometry for improved understanding of compet-
itive interactions between lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and methicillin-resistant S.
aureus (MRSA) in mixed culture. J Microbiol Methods 2006;65:1–9. 7, 8
79. Oliveira M, Bexiga R, Nunes SF, et al. Biofilm-forming ability profiling of Staphy-
lococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis mastitis isolates. Vet Microbiol
2006;118:133–140. 8, 9, 13, 48
80. Oliveira M, Nunes SF, Carneiro C, et al. Time course of biofilm formation by
Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis mastitis isolates. Vet Mi-
crobiol 2007;124:187–191. 8, 13
81. Forsgren A, Forsum U. Agglutination of Staphylococcus aureus by rabbit sera.
Infect Immun 1972;5:524–530. 8
134 References
82. Smith P, McCoy E, Wilson J. Identification of staphylococci in nonfat dry milk
by the fluorescent antibody technique [1] and [2]. J Dairy Sci 1962;45:729–734. 8
83. Forsgren A, Sjoquist J. Protein A from S. aureus. I. pseudo-immune reaction with
human gamma-globulin. J Immunol 1966;97:822–827. 8, 22
84. Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW, Blackall LL. Design and evaluation of 16S rRNA-
targeted oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Methods
Mol Biol 2002;179:29–42. 9, 11, 27, 32, 36, 45, 48
85. Malic S, Hill KE, Hayes A, et al. Detection and identification of specific bacteria in
wound biofilms using peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization (PNA
FISH). Microbiology 2009;155:2603–2611. 9, 11, 13, 31
86. Baldrich E, Vigues N, Mas J, et al. Sensing bacteria but treating them well:
Determination of optimal incubation and storage conditions. Anal Biochem 2008;
383:68–75. 9, 17, 41
87. Trebesius K, Leitritz L, Adler K, et al. Culture independent and rapid identifica-
tion of bacterial pathogens in necrotising fasciitis and streptococcal toxic shock
syndrome by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Med Microbiol Immunol 2000;
188:169–175. 9, 10, 12, 13, 31, 32, 40, 41, 120, 121
88. Jansen GJ, Mooibroek M, Idema J, et al. Rapid identification of bacteria in blood
cultures by using fluorescently labeled oligonucleotide probes. J Clin Microbiol
2000;38:814–817. 9, 13, 27, 107
89. Kalliomaki M, Collado MC, Salminen S, et al. Early differences in fecal microbiota
composition in children may predict overweight. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:534–538.
10, 11, 13
90. Hogardt M, Trebesius K, Geiger AM, et al. Specific and rapid detection by
fluorescent in situ hybridization of bacteria in clinical samples obtained from
cystic fibrosis patients. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:818–825. 10, 11, 13
References 135
91. Hoshino T, Yilmaz LS, Noguera DR, et al. Quantification of target molecules
needed to detect microorganisms by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and
catalyzed reporter deposition-FISH. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:5068–5077.
10
92. Yilmaz LS, Parnerkar S, Noguera DR. mathFISH, a web tool that uses
thermodynamics-based mathematical models for in silico evaluation of oligonu-
cleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol
2011;77:1118–22. 10, 11, 16, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 45, 46, 117
93. Chapin K, Musgnug M. Evaluation of three rapid methods for the direct identi-
fication of Staphylococcus aureus from positive blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol
2003;41:4324–4327. 10, 15
94. Pernthaler J, Pernthaler A, Amann R. Automated enumeration of groups of ma-
rine picoplankton after fluorescence in situ hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol
2003;69:2631–2637. 10, 31
95. Szweda P, Kotlowski R, Kur J. New effective sources of the Staphylococcus sim-
ulans lysostaphin. J Biotechnol 2005;117:203–213. 10, 15, 18, 44, 72
96. Yilmaz LS, Bergsven LI, Noguera DR. Systematic evaluation of single mismatch
stability predictors for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Environ Microbiol 2008;
10:2872–2885. 11, 38, 39
97. Johnson M, Zaretskaya I, Raytselis Y, et al. NCBI BLAST: a better web interface.
Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:5–9. 11, 36
98. Yilmaz LS, Okten HE, Noguera DR. Making all parts of the 16S rRNA of Es-
cherichia coli accessible in situ to single DNA oligonucleotides. Appl Environ
Microbiol 2006;72:733–744. 11, 25, 38, 39
99. Yilmaz LS, Noguera DR. Development of thermodynamic models for simulating
probe dissociation profiles in fluorescence in situ hybridization. Biotechnol Bioeng
2007;96:349–363. 11, 16, 38
136 References
100. Matsuhisa A, Saito Y, Ueyama H, et al. Detection of staphylococci in mouse
phagocytic cells by in situ hybridization using biotinylated DNA probes. Biotech
Histochem 1994;69:31–37. 11, 13, 14, 15, 40, 42, 90, 91
101. Hawkins RC. Laboratory turnaround time. Clin Biochem Rev 2007;28:179–194.
11, 12, 51
102. Perry-O’Keefe H, Rigby S, Oliveira K, et al. Identification of indicator microor-
ganisms using a standardized PNA FISH method. J Microbiol Methods 2001;
47:281–292. 12, 13, 27, 34, 40, 41, 48, 108
103. Oliveira K, Brecher SM, Durbin A, et al. Direct identification of Staphylococcus
aureus from positive blood culture bottles. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:889–891. 12,
13, 15
104. Gonzalez V, Padilla E, Gimenez M, et al. Rapid diagnosis of Staphylococcus
aureus bacteremia using S. aureus PNA FISH. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
2004;23:396–398. 12, 13
105. Hartmann H, Stender H, Schafer A, et al. Rapid identification of Staphylococcus
aureus in blood cultures by a combination of fluorescence in situ hybridization
using peptide nucleic acid probes and flow cytometry. J Clin Microbiol 2005;
43:4855–4857. 12, 13, 29, 40, 107, 108
106. Fiandaca M, Oliveira K, Stender H. Patent US20070128646 - Hybridization of
PNA probes in alcohol solutions 2007. 12, 108
107. Regnault B, Martin-Delautre S, Grimont PAD. Problems associated with the
direct viable count procedure applied to gram-positive bacteria. Int J Food Mi-
crobiol 2000;55:281–284. 12, 13, 108
108. Nielsen PE, Egholm M, Berg RH, et al. Sequence-selective recognition of DNA
by strand displacement with a thymine-substituted polyamide. Science (80) 1991;
254:1497–1500. 12, 108
References 137
109. Oliveira K, Procop GW, Wilson D, et al. Rapid identification of Staphylococcus
aureus directly from blood cultures by fluorescence in situ hybridization with
peptide nucleic acid probes. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:247–251. 13, 40
110. Sogaard M, Stender H, Schonheyder HC. Direct identification of major blood
culture pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli, by a
panel of fluorescence in situ hybridization assays using peptide nucleic acid probes.
J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:1947–1949. 13
111. Forrest GN, Mehta S, Weekes E, et al. Impact of rapid in situ hybridization
testing on coagulase-negative staphylococci positive blood cultures. J Antimicrob
Chemother 2006;58:154–158. 13
112. Peters RP, Savelkoul PH, Simoons-Smit AM, et al. Faster identification of
pathogens in positive blood cultures by fluorescence in situ hybridization in rou-
tine practice. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:119–123. 13
113. Peters RPH, Agtmael MAV, Simoons-Smit AM, et al. Rapid identification of
pathogens in blood cultures with a modified fluorescence in situ hybridization
assay. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:4186–4188. 13
114. Horvath A, Kristof K, Konkoly-Thege M, et al. Rapid identification of pathogens
in blood culture with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Acta Microbiol
Immunol Hung 2010;57:225–234. 13
115. Kipp F, Ziebuhr W, Becker K, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus by 16S
rRNA directed in situ hybridisation in a patient with a brain abscess caused by
small colony variants. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:1000–1002. 13
116. Alt V, Lips KS, Henkenbehrens C, et al. A new animal model for implant-
related infected non-unions after intramedullary fixation of the tibia in rats with
fluorescent in situ hybridization of bacteria in bone infection. Bone 2011;48:1146–
1153. 13, 18, 34, 45
138 References
117. Hall-Stoodley L, Hu FZ, Gieseke A, et al. Direct detection of bacterial biofilms
on the Middle-Ear mucosa of children with chronic otitis media. JAMA 2006;
296:202–211. 13
118. Hoa M, Tomovic S, Nistico L, et al. Identification of adenoid biofilms with middle
ear pathogens in otitis-prone children utilizing SEM and FISH. Int J Pediatr
Otorhinolaryngol 2009;73:1242–1248. 13
119. Homoe P, Bjarnsholt T, Wessman M, et al. Morphological evidence of biofilm for-
mation in Greenlanders with chronic suppurative otitis media. Eur Arch Otorhi-
nolaryngol 2009;266:1533–1538. 13
120. Nistico L, Gieseke A, Stoodley P, et al. Fluorescence ’in situ’ hybridization for
the detection of biofilm in the middle ear and upper respiratory tract mucosa.
Methods Mol Biol 2009;493:191–213. 13
121. Veeh RH, Shirtliff ME, Petik JR, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm
on tampons and menses components. J Infect Dis 2003;188:519–530. 13, 14, 19,
88
122. Sanderson AR, Leid JG, Hunsaker D. Bacterial biofilms on the sinus mucosa of
human subjects with chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1121–1126.
13
123. Huvenne W, Zhang N, Tijsma E, et al. Pilot study using doxycycline-releasing
stents to ameliorate postoperative healing quality after sinus surgery. Wound
Repair Regen 2008;16:757–767. 13
124. Healy DY, Leid JG, Sanderson AR, et al. Biofilms with fungi in chronic rhinosi-
nusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138:641–647. 13
125. Niederfuhr A, Kirsche H, Deutschle T, et al. Staphylococcus aureus in nasal lavage
and biopsy of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Allergy 2008;63:1359–1367. 13,
19, 88
References 139
126. Corriveau MN, Zhang N, Holtappels G, et al. Detection of Staphylococcus aureus
in nasal tissue with peptide nucleic acid-fluorescence in situ hybridization. Am J
Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:461–465. 13
127. Foreman A, Psaltis AJ, Tan LW, et al. Characterization of bacterial and fungal
biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:556–561. 13
128. Foreman A, Wormald PJ. Different biofilms, different disease? a clinical outcomes
study. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1701–1706. 13, 109
129. Foreman A, Singhal D, Psaltis AJ, et al. Targeted imaging modality selection for
bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2010;120:427–431. 13,
109
130. Sachse F, Becker K, von Eiff C, et al. Staphylococcus aureus invades the epithelium
in nasal polyposis and induces IL-6 in nasal epithelial cells in vitro. Allergy 2010;
65:1430–1437. 13
131. Swidsinski A, Goktas O, Bessler C, et al. Spatial organisation of microbiota in
quiescent adenoiditis and tonsillitis. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:253–260. 13
132. Zautner AE, Krause M, Stropahl G, et al. Intracellular persisting Staphylococcus
aureus is the major pathogen in recurrent tonsillitis. PLoS One 2010;5:e9452. 13,
93
133. Kirketerp-Moller K, Jensen PO, Fazli M, et al. Distribution, organization, and
ecology of bacteria in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2717–2722. 13
134. Thomsen T, Aasholm M, Rudkjobing V, et al. The bacteriology of chronic venous
leg ulcer examined by culture-independent molecular methods. Wound Repair
Regen 2010;18:38–49. 13
135. Stoodley P, Conti S, DeMeo P, et al. Characterization of a mixed MRSA/MRSE
biofilm in an explanted total ankle arthroplasty. FEMS Immunol Med Mic 2011;
62:66–74. 13
140 References
136. Connally R, Veal D, Piper J. Time-resolved fluorescence microscopy using an
improved europium chelate BHHST for the in situ detection of cryptosporidium
and giardia. Microsc Res Tech 2004;64:312–322. 14, 19, 21, 22, 89, 94
137. Bernhardt M, Pennell D, Almer L, et al. Detection of bacteria in blood by cen-
trifugation and filtration. J Clin Microbiol 1991;29:422–425. 14, 18, 106, 108
138. Decleva E, Menegazzi R, Busetto S, et al. Common methodology is inadequate
for studies on the microbicidal activity of neutrophils. J Leukocyte Biol 2006;
79:87–94. 14, 19, 21, 42, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 106
139. Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and cat-
alyzed reporter deposition for the identification of marine bacteria. Appl Environ
Microbiol 2002;68:3094–3101. 15, 42, 43
140. Bouvier T, Del Giorgio PA. Factors influencing the detection of bacterial cells
using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): a quantitative review of published
reports. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2003;44:3–15. 15, 16, 27, 33, 34, 104
141. Yan C, Ding B, Lan X, et al. The toxicity study on marine low-temperature
lysozyme. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:604–609. 15, 44, 73
142. Manz W, Amann R, Ludwig W, et al. Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes
for the major subclasses of proteobacteria: problems and solutions. Syst Appl
Microbiol 1992;15:593–600. 16, 18, 31, 32, 35, 45, 47, 105
143. Manz W, Eisenbrecher M, Neu TR, et al. Abundance and spatial organization
of gram-negative sulfate-reducing bacteria in activated sludge investigated by in
situ probing with specific 16S rRNA targeted oligonucleotides. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 1998;25:43–61. 16, 34, 35, 45
144. Simard C, Lemieux R, Cote S. Urea substitutes toxic formamide as destabilizing
agent in nucleic acid hybridizations with RNA probes. Electrophoresis 2001;
22:2679–2683. 16, 18, 32, 72, 105
References 141
145. Knoll J, Lichter P, Bakdounes K, et al. In situ hybridization and detection using
nonisotopic probes. Curr Protoc Mol Biol 2007;14:Unit 14.7. 16, 47, 89, 94
146. Bossuyt PM, Irwig L, Craig J, et al. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests
against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ 2006;332:1089. 17
147. Cisani G, Varaldo PE, Grazi G, et al. High-level potentiation of lysostaphin
anti-staphylococcal activity by lysozyme. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982;
21:531–535. 17, 27, 30, 43, 44, 48, 72
148. Connally R. A device for Gated Auto-Synchronous Luminescence Detection
(GALD). Anal Chem 2011;83:4782–4787. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 47, 48, 90, 91,
92, 95, 101
149. Seveus L, Vaisala M, Syrjanen S, et al. Time-resolved fluorescence imaging of
europium chelate label in immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. Cy-
tometry 1992;13:329–338. 21, 22, 88, 90, 93, 106
150. de Haas R, Verwoerd N, Van der Corput M, et al. The use of peroxidase-
mediated deposition of biotin-tyramide in combination with time-resolved flu-
orescence imaging of europium chelate label in immunohistochemistry and in situ
hybridization. J Histochem Cytochem 1996;44:1091–1099. 21, 22, 90
151. Connally R, Jin D, Piper J. BHHST: an improved lanthanide chelate for time-
resolved fluorescence applications. In Proc SPIE, vol. 5704. 93. 21, 22, 89, 101
152. Weise A, Mrasek K, Ewers E, et al. Diagnostic applications of fluorescence in situ
hybridization. Expert Opin Med Diagn 2009;3:453–460. 29
153. Hutton JR. Renaturation kinetics and thermal stability of DNA in aqueous so-
lutions of formamide and urea. Nucleic Acids Res 1977;4:3537–3555. 31, 32, 33,
39, 45, 47, 105, 106
154. Cole JR, Wang Q, Cardenas E, et al. The ribosomal database project: improved
alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;37:141–145.
36
142 References
155. Loy A, Arnold R, Tischler P, et al. probeCheck-a central resource for evaluating
oligonucleotide probe coverage and specificity. Environ Microbiol 2008;10:2894–
2898. 36
156. Yilmaz LS, Noguera DR. Mechanistic approach to the problem of hybridiza-
tion efficiency in fluorescent in situ hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004;
70:7126–7139. 36, 38
157. Amann RI, Binder BJ, Olson RJ, et al. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted
oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial popu-
lations. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990;56:1919–1925. 40, 107, 117
158. Thomas LC, Gidding HF, Ginn AN, et al. Development of a real-time Staphy-
lococcus aureus and MRSA (SAM-) PCR for routine blood culture. J Microbiol
Methods 2007;68:296–302. 41, 90, 106
159. Hinds A, Peterson G. Method for standardizing staphylococcal suspensions: Re-
lationship of optical density to viable cell count. J Bacteriol 1963;86:168. 41,
91
160. Hockey L, Fujita N, Gibson T, et al. Detection of fungemia obscured by concomi-
tant bacteremia: in vitro and in vivo studies. J Clin Microbiol 1982;16:1080–1085.
42, 91, 106
161. Krasnoperov L, Marras S, Kozlov M, et al. Luminescent probes for ultrasensitive
detection of nucleic acids. Bioconjugate Chem 2010;21:319–327. 88, 89
162. Soini E, Lovgren T, Reimer C. Time-resolved fluorescence of lanthanide probes
and applications in biotechnology. Crit Rev Anal Chem 1987;18:105–154. 88, 89
163. Selvin P. Principles and biophysical applications of lanthanide-based probes.
Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2002;31:275–302. 89
164. Bunzli J, Piguet C. Taking advantage of luminescent lanthanide ions. Chem Soc
Rev 2005;34:1048–1077. 89
References 143
165. Bunzli J. Lanthanide luminescence for biomedical analyses and imaging. Chem
Rev 2010;110:2729–2755. 89, 90
166. Nauseef W. Isolation of human neutrophils from venous blood. Methods Mol Biol
2007;412:15–20. 93
167. Roller C, Wagner M, Amann R, et al. In situ probing of gram-positive bacte-
ria with high DNA G + C content using 23S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotides.
Microbiology 1994;140:2849–2858. 108
168. Fowler JVG, Justice A, Moore C, et al. Risk factors for hematogenous compli-
cations of intravascular Catheter-Associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.
Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:695–703. 108
169. Jin D, Connally R, Piper J. Practical time-gated luminescence flow cytometry. I:
concepts. Cytom Part A 2007;71:783–796. 108
170. Jin D, Connally R, Piper J. Practical time-gated luminescence flow cytometry. II:
experimental evaluation using UV LED excitation. Cytom Part A 2007;71:797–
808. 108
171. Foreman A, Wormald P. In response to targeted imaging modality selection for
bacterial biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis and different biofilms, different disease?
a clinical outcomes study. Laryngoscope 2011;121:2045–2046. 109
top related