Author:
Marina Čeprnja,Damir Oros,Andrea Janeš,Jurica Žučko,Karmela Barišić,Jasenka Škrlin,Antonio Starčević
Abstract
Standard urine culture is still considered a gold standard in the identification of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs), but is time-consuming and in approximately 20% of patients with UTI symptoms produces false-negative results. Medical and scientific communities are in search of a faster, more accurate, yet affordable method with high clinical utility. As a supplement to standard culture in routine practice Urine Flow Cytometer (UFC) screening method is used, in order to detect negative urine culture samples. This allows for shortening issuing time for sterile urine culture reports and the cost of the analysis itself. In addition, urine dipstick tests and microscopic examinations of urine sediment can also be performed in biochemical laboratories but are usually preceded by urine culture. Nowadays, advanced methods such as proteomics and genomics are used to identify pathogens causing UTIs but are still used mainly for scientific purposes and rarely in clinical practice. From genomic methods PCR, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and metagenome sequencing are being researched. PCR is great for targeted diagnostics, 16S RNA gene amplification can determine bacterial genera and their abundance, but is not good for in-depth species analysis, while metagenomics is the most comprehensive and unbiased method. The proteomics field also offers several methods for microbial identification, with MS as the leading one. Clinical applications of MS platforms usually imply MALDI-TOF MS analyzers which produce a characteristic spectrum called peptide mass fingerprint or more present for scientific purposes LC-MS/MS-based peptide sequencing.
Publisher
Peertechz Publications Private Limited
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference85 articles.
1. 1. Yu Y, Pieper R. Using Proteomics to Identify Inflammation During Urinary Tract Infection. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;2021:259-272. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9601-8_22. PMID: 31309511.
2. 2. Foxman B. The epidemiology of urinary tract infection. Nat Rev Urol. 2010 Dec;7(12):653-60. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.190. PMID: 21139641.
3. 3. Price TK, Dune T, Hilt EE, Thomas-White KJ, Kliethermes S, Brincat C, Brubaker L, Wolfe AJ, Mueller ER, Schreckenberger PC. The Clinical Urine Culture: Enhanced Techniques Improve Detection of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms. J Clin Microbiol. 2016 May;54(5):1216-22. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00044-16. Epub 2016 Mar 9. PMID: 26962083; PMCID: PMC4844725.
4. 4. Schmiemann G, Kniehl E, Gebhardt K, Matejczyk MM, Hummers-Pradier E. The diagnosis of urinary tract infection: a systematic review. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 May;107(21):361-7. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0361. Epub 2010 May 28. PMID: 20539810; PMCID: PMC2883276.
5. 5. Aspevall O, Hallander H, Gant V, Kouri T. European guidelines for urinalysis: a collaborative document produced by European clinical microbiologists and clinical chemists under ECLM in collaboration with ESCMID. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2001 Apr;7(4):173-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1198-743x.2001.00237.x. PMID: 11422238.