P. aeruginosa is an opportunist pathogen which during the recent decades, has been considered as a common agent of hospital acquired infections. The main reason for this condition is potential colonization factors like alginates and pilli and wide distribution of multi-drug resistance strains of this organism in hospital environments (
4).
P. aeruginosa is the most important cause of infection in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). More than 80% of patients with CF are infected by this pathogen (
15).
Identification of this bacterium in most laboratories is through conventional culture methods and isolation procedures, but culture from initial colonization in patients with cystic fibrosis is negative, however early detection of the organism in initial colonization is vital for these individuals (
12). In addition, in patients admitted to the ICU and patients with level 3 burning, which have entered in the bacteremia phase, rapid identification of the bacteria via the conventional culture method and biochemical tests in a short time if not impossible, is very difficult (
6). In addition, this bacterium is able to exist as auxotroph strains, which need special selective culture media for growth, and this makes its diagnostic more difficult. Therefore, false negative culture of patients sensitive to infection such as cystic fibrosis patients might be life threatening (
13).
Another problem is that in most cases of burning patients there might be co-infection with other bacteria, thus repeated subcultures to isolate
P. aeruginosa takes about 5-6 days. In this condition, only using a careful and rapid method can overcome the problems (
6). In some European countries in order to identify these bacteria in patients with cystic fibrosis they use serological methods such as ELISA to detect antibodies (
16), but the price of these methods depends on the kit and manufacturer and it sometimes could be more expensive. False positive results due to reactions with other bacteria including the
Enterbacteriacae family are the other limitations of serological methods (
17). Therefore, using the PCR method has priority to culture for detection of organisms at the beginning of the colonization especially in CF infections. Moreover PCR is more efficient than the culture method (
18).
Various follow up studies during the recent years have shown that the PCR method has been able to detect bacteria at the beginning of colonization in CF patients, while the culture results are negative at the beginning of colonization in the above mentioned patients (
14). In most of these follow ups, a positive culture is reported several weeks after organism colonization. Consequently, PCR is able to show the colonization of
Pseudomonas, earlier than culture. It is obviously clear that having early information about colonization of the organism in high-risk patients is important for interventions by antibiotic therapy (
14). Secondly, regarding patients with CF, throughout their life-time, they are often infected with a PA clone; surveying clone transfer among CF patients is impossible by the culture method (
19,
20). In this study, DNA was extracted directly from clinical samples such as lung secretions, cystic fibrosis patients’ sputum or swab from sever burning wounds, then by using two sets of specifically designed primers in this study and published in articles, the sensitivity and specificity of the PCR reaction was assessed.
Khan and Cerniglia used the PCR assay for identification of
P. aeruginosa from clinical samples by designing specific primer for the
exoA gene (
21). Their results showed that this method has high specificity and is more suitable than biochemical methods. In 2000 Song et al, performed the same method using the
exoA gene and confirmatory results were obtained (
22). Another study was performed by Lanotte et al., in 2004 for detection
P. aeruginosa using a couple of primers for oprL and
exoA genes. The results illustrated that PCR with
oprL gene produced higher sensitivity and specificity than the
exoA gene; this is in accordance with our research (
23). However the results of De Vos et al. research, which compared the
oprL and oprI genes for detection of
P. aeruginosa, demonstrated that the sensitivity of the PCR method using
oprL gene is higher than
oprI (
24). Beside, Feizabadi et al. performed a real time PCR using the
oprL gene. The sensitivity and specificity of this method was 100% and 98.85%, respectively (
4).
In addition Billard-Pomare et al. showed that qPCR of
oprL gene has high specificity and it is more suitable than culture to show bacterial colonization (
18). Moreover, Logan et al. compared PCR and conventional culture for colonization determination. They concluded that, compared to culture; PCR has higher sensitivity and specificity (
14). In this study, several sputum samples were found positive through the PCR method while their cultures were negative. In most of our cases PCR samples become positive earlier once compared with culture investigations that their samples converted to positive during the time of hospitalization. This finding indicates that our method has sufficient sensitivity and specify to detect colonized patients (
14). This could be considered as the advantage of this study.
In conclusion, the results of the present study showed that the PCR assay was able to detect P. aeruginosa infection in clinical samples earlier than conventional bacterial culture methods. It was also shown that by using newly designed primer sets for algD, oprL and exoA genes it is possible to detect infection more efficiently than previously published primer sets. This finding suggests that appropriately designed primers can increase both the sensitivity and specificity of a PCR assay. The results also emphasize that the PCR method has a great advantage over conventional culture in cases that timely treatment is important for patients’ outcome.