AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Isaac-Renton, J L
Right arrow Articles by Bowie, W R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Isaac-Renton, J L
Right arrow Articles by Bowie, W R
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Isaac-Renton, J L
Right arrow Articles by Bowie, W R

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 May; 58(5): 1530-1533

Comparison of an in vitro method and an in vivo method of Giardia excystation.

J L Isaac-Renton, H Shahriari and W R Bowie

Division of Medical Microbiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

ABSTRACT

An in vitro method and an in vivo method of excystation were compared to determine the most useful method for the retrieval of Giardia duodenalis isolates. Cysts from 11 Giardia strains were used. In vitro excystation produced motile trophozoites in 16 sets, while in vivo excystation produced trophozoites in all of the 21 comparative sets of excystations. Few cultures were lost because of contamination by either method (17% of in vitro-derived trophozoites versus 23% of in vivo-derived trophozoites; P greater than 0.05). Both methods demonstrated comparable isolate retrieval rates (15% of in vitro-derived trophozoites adapting to culture compared with 29% of in vivo-derived trophozoites; P greater than 0.05), although analysis of the strains retrieved showed that two isolates were retrieved from in vitro excystation alone, compared with four from in vivo excystation. Analysis that included results of extra in vivo cultures showed that a total of nine isolates were retrieved by using this type of excystation. Despite the disadvantages of cost and labor, in vivo excystation appears to be more useful than in vitro excystation for isolate retrieval at the present time.


Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 May; 58(5): 1530-1533




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1992 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.