Except for a future promising vaccine, one of the strategies to prevent GBS disease is screening and intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. Prescribing prophylactic antibiotics for GBS carrier pregnant women during delivery can decrease vertical transmission of GBS to neonates; thereby decrease early onset disease (EOD) in neonates (
5). Culture method, antigen-based tests and hybridization-based methods lack enough sensitivity and these methods can only identify women with heavy GBS colonization. In addition, they are time-consuming (
5,
10). Using improved diagnostic instruments such as PCR for detecting GBS may result in reasonable utilization of antibiotics. In fact, combining rapid sampling with rapid proliferation and identifying technologies can aid to improve the control and prevention of infectious diseases (
11).
Performing Pearson correlation analysis, no variables related to ages were significantly associated with the presence of GBS colonization in vaginal tracts of pregnant women; (P = 0.622). Of the 203 pregnant women, 41 stated a history of antibiotic taking until two weeks prior to the study and five of them were positive (three samples using only PCR method plus two samples using both PCR and culture methods). In comparison, 162 individuals had not taken antibiotic that 37 of them were positive (24 samples using only PCR method, two samples using only culture method and 11 samples using both). However, performing Pearson correlation analysis and chi square test (χ
2), no significant correlation was found between antibiotic taking history and the presence of GBS colonization (P = 0.178). Rates of colonization in 20.69% were similar to the rates described in the literature, ranging 10-30% (
5). Moreover, epidemiological studies in Iran have shown rates of GBS colonization as 5.3-26.7% (
15-
23).
The study performed by Fatemi et al. reported rates of GBS colonization as 19.7% by PCR using 16S rRNA and 20.6% by culture method. Sensitivity and specificity were reported 82.3% and 96.5%, respectively (
21). Another recent study performed by Bakhtiari et al. resulted a 9.3% prevalence of GBS in culture method and 11.2% by PCR, using the
cfb gene. Both sensitivity and NPV were 100% and specificity and PPV of PCR were 98% and 100%, respectively (
24). According to the study by Fabien Rallu et al. the prevalence of GBS was determined 16% by culture (sensitivity 42.3%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 74.3%), 28% by PCR using the
cfb gene (sensitivity 75.3%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.1%), 37% by PCR using the
scpB gene (sensitivity 99.6%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 99.7%), 22% by
GBS antigen detection (sensitivity 57.3%, specificity 99.5%, PPV 98.5%, NPV 79.5%) (
25). Another study performed by de-Paris et al. showed the prevalence of GBS 26.99% by PCR using the
atr gene and 15.96% by culture method. Sensitivity and specificity for PCR were 100% and 86.88%, respectively. NPV was 100% and PPV was 59% (
12).
The different prevalence rates between several studies may be associated with gestational age at culturing, differences in sampling sites (i.e. only vaginal vs
. rectovaginal), using different culture techniques, using PCR with different targets, an alteration of prevalence with time, or real differences of prevalence in various populations or ethnic groups (
26). In addition, differences in the elapsed time after sampling for transporting clinical specimens to be processed, using different nucleic acid extraction method, as well as using PCR with different targeting can be some reasons for differences related to reported specificity and sensitivity of PCR in several studies.
In 27 specimens, the PCR results were positive and the cultures were negative (
Table 2). Additional analysis including repeating the assay and using PCR targeting the
atr,
cfb, and
scpB genes demonstrated PCR products consistent with GBS, substantiating that these 27 individuals were true GBS carriers with negative GBS cultures. Thereby, these specimens were considered to be true GBS carriers in whom culture method failed to detect GBS.
Interpretation of PCR results associated with cultures is challenging when a positive result for bacterial nucleic acids is compared with negative result for culture. The reason for this contrary may be related to detection of bacteria as a result of a higher sensitivity of PCR for detection of circulating nucleic acids, or non-proliferating, dead or degraded GBS (viable versus nonviable GBS); for instance, in antibiotic pretreated individuals. Other possibilities regarding this subject may be associated with remaining nucleic acid (microbial DNA aemia) mainly after successful antimicrobial therapy; in fact, the remaining nucleic acid may be detectable up to several days without evident clinical significance or positive culture result (
12,
27,
28). Besides, presenting some none-GBS bacteria in the vaginogenital tract, such as enterococci or other streptococci species can inhibit the growth of GBS even when using a selective medium such as Lim broth. In addition, individuals may have a very low bacterial load during labor which leads to a small number of GBS cells in the swab samples. In addition, collection, storage and transportation errors are other possible considerations which might affect the culture growth particularly in individuals with a small number of GBS cells. On the other hand, 5% of all GBS strains are nonhemolytic, and in such cases, the GBS colony/colonies may hide from visualization or differentiation in the burden colony of other presenting nonhemolytic streptococci or enterococci colonies. The final possible explanation for these differences is the fact that using double-sampling for each detection method separately may have influenced the intrapartum culture and PCR as the load of bacteria might have been different in the two sampling swabs, leading to discrepancy in yielded results of the two methods.
Another discrepancy about this study was the results of the two samples, for which culture was positive and PCR was negative. PCR was repeated and also tested using the three other mentioned genes to confirm the true yielded results. Possible explanation for these results might be the failures association with the method, such as presence of inhibitors for PCR reaction and probable inaccuracy in handling, collection and transportation (
6). In addition, more detailed reviewing of culture plates showed that the two plates grew one colony; thereby this discrepancy can be associated with the lower limit of detection (sensitivity) of PCR. Therefore, these were considered false-negative results.
It is required to select species-specific pairs of primers to apply accurate PCR diagnosis as well as minimize false positive results in direct clinical specimens. An advantage of using PCR targeting 16S rRNA as a gene for detecting bacteria is the high concentration of the 16S rRNA gene targets in bacterial cells. In fact, the presence of multiple copies of genes encoding rRNA in the genome of a given bacterium allows for more sensitive detection through the multiple target sites. However, due to high homology of the 16S rRNA gene regions in different species as well as the presence of several copies of this gene (intragenomic copies) that can differ in sequence, it may lead to identification of bacteria other than GBS and thereby ending up with false positive results (
27,
29), as shown in this study.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that performing only culture method for detecting GBS in pregnant women leads to missed false negative carrier individuals' detection. Therefore, it is recommended that both PCR and conventional culture method be routinely performed to detect GBS in pregnant women accurately. Furthermore, PCR diagnosis demonstrated more sensitive results and shorter turnaround time compared with culture method for detection of GBS colonization in pregnant women. In fact, PCR has the potential for direct intrapartum detection of GBS colonization.