1887

Abstract

Summary

Routine procedures used to isolate in a busy laboratory are reported. Identification was based on colony morphology and nutritional and biochemical properties of 120 fresh isolates of These isolates grew very well on Gonococcal Agar and Mueller-Hinton Agar incubated at 34°C in candle extinction jars containing moistened filter paper. Colonies varied in size, giving a polymorphic appearance. They were smooth, dome-shaped, and buff-yellow to grey in colour, and measured 2 mm in diameter. They could be pushed intact across the agar surface. By microscopic examination of gram-stained smears the isolates were gram-negative coccobacilli arranged in short chains, clumps or whorls and occasionally in typical “rail track” arrangements. Individual bacteria showed bipolar staining. Colonies autoagglutinated in saline. All strains were catalase-negative and did not produce indole or HS. They were oxidase- and -lactamase positive and required X but not V factor for growth. Now that reliable techniques have been developed and characteristics established it is possible for most clinical laboratories to isolate and identify this organism from most patients with chancroid.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-22-2-175
1986-09-01
2022-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/22/2/medmicro-22-2-175.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-22-2-175&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bilgeri Y. R., Ballard R. C., Duncan M. O., Mauff A. C., KoornhofFH J. U. 1982; Antimicrobial susceptibility of 103 strains of Haemophilus ducreyi isolated in Johannesburg. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 22:686–688
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Center for Disease Control 1982; Chancroid-California. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 31:173–175
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chapel T. A., Brown W. J., Jeffriec C., Stewart J. A. 1977; How reliable is the morphological diagnosis of penile ulcerations?. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 4:150–152
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Choudhary B. P., Kumari S., Bhatia R., Agarwal D. S. 1982; Bacteriologic study of chancroid. Indian Journal of Medical Research 76:379–385
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clarke P. H., Cowan S. T. 1952; Biochemical methods for bacteriology. Journal of General Microbiology 6:187–197
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cowan S. T. 1974; Cowan and Steel’s manual for the identification of medical bacteria. 2nd edn Cambridge University Press; Cambridge:
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fast M. V. 1982; Treatment of chancroid by clavulanic acid with amoxycillin in patients with /J-lactamase-positive Haemophilus ducreyi infection. Lancet 2:509–511
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hammond G. W., Lian C. J., Wilt J. C., Ronald A. R. 1978a; Comparison of the specimen collection and laboratory techniques for isolation of Haemophilus ducreyi . Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7:39–43
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hammond G. W., Lian C. J., Wilt J. C., Albritton W. L., Ronald A. R. 1978b; Determination of the haemin requirement of Haemophilus ducreyi: evaluation of the porphyrin test and media used in the satellite growth test. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 7:243–246
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kibukamusoke J. W. 1965; Venereal disease in East Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 59:642–648
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kilian M. 1976; A taxonomic study of the genus Haemophilus, with the proposal of a new species. Journal of General Microbiology 93:9–62
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kovacs N. 1956; Identification of Pseudomonas pyocyanea by the oxidase reaction. Nature 178:703
    [Google Scholar]
  13. McNicol P. J., Ronald A. R. 1984; The plasmids of Haemophilus ducreyi . Journal of Antimicrobial Chemetherapy 14:561–564
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Nobre G. N. 1982; Identification of Haemophilus ducreyi in the clinical laboratory. Journal of Medical Microbiology 15:243–245
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nsanze H., Fast M. V., Costa L. J., Tukei P., Curran J., Ronald A. R. 1981; Genital ulcers in Kenya; a clinical and laboratory study. British Journal of Venereal Diseases 57:378–381
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Nsanze H. 1984; Comparison of media for the primary isolation of Haemophilus ducreyi . Sexually Transmitted Diseases 11:6–9
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Piot P., Slottmans L., Nsanze H., Ronald A. R. 1983; Isolating Haemophilus ducreyi . Lancet 2:909–910
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Plummer F. A., Costa L. J., Nsanze H., Dylewski J., Karasira P., Ronald A. R. 1983; Epidemiology of chancroid and Haemophilus ducreyi in Nairobi, Kenya. Lancet 2:1293–1295
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Plummer F. A., Kraus S. J., Sottnek F. O., Albritton W. L. 1984; Chancroid and granuloma inguinale. In Wentworth B. B., Judson F. N. (eds) Laboratory methods for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted diseases American Public Health Association; Washington DC: pp 193–211
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ronald A. R., Albritton W. L. 1984; Chancroid and Haemophilus ducreyi . In Holmes K. K. (eds) Sexually transmitted diseases McGraw-Hill Book Company; New York: pp 385–393
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sottnek F. O., Biddle J. W., Krams S. J., Weaver R. E., Stewart J. A. 1980; Isolation and identification of Haemophilus ducreyi in a clinical study. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 12:170–174
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sturm A. W., Zanen H. C. 1984; Enzymic activity of Haemophilus ducreyi . Journal of Clinical Microbiology 18:181–187
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Taylor D. N. 1984; The role of Haemophilus ducreyi in penile ulcers in Bangkok, Thailand. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 11:148–151
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-22-2-175
Loading

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error