We use cookies on our websites to ensure the proper functioning of the website and to help provide the best user experience.
By continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Learn more about cookies here.


Clinical laboratory practises for Campylobacter testing

Campylobacter is a Gram-negative bacterium that is frequently found in both humans and animals. It is the most common bacterial cause of human gastroenteritis in the world1,2. The most common species associated with campylobacteriosis are Campylobacter jejuni subsp. jejuni (>90%) and Campylobacter coli (5-10%)1,3-5. The high incidence of Campylobacter diarrhoea, as well as its duration and possible sequelae, makes it highly important from a socio-economic perspective3.

Different practices to test Campylobacter exist and some of the practises may even lead to underdiagnosis6. The gold standard and current detection techniques for Campylobacter are mainly based on culture under microaerophilic conditions4,7. Culture is laborious and time-consuming and results are usually obtained only after 2-4 days. Antigen detection tests are also available but there are concerns regarding specificity4.

Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) are very sensitive. Several studies have shown that the traditional culture based methods are lacking of sensitivity when compared to molecular based PCR methods8-13. The study of Ghosh et al. (2014)14 showed that the molecular based techniques significantly increased detection rates of Campylobacter in children with diarrhoea. It was discussed in their study that the immunoenzymatic assay has the advantage of applicability in resource-poor settings. Such settings without molecular biology facilities would most likely benefit from affordable, all-inclusive, highly sensitive and specific molecular detection systems, such as Orion GenRead, that can be used without special expertise. 

Nucleic acid amplification based technologies have enhanced, simplified and speeded up the diagnosis of bacterial and viral infections. The molecular tests can potentially replace culture-based methods in diagnostics8. Current clinical laboratory practises for Campylobacter testing appear to be changing with the increasing availability of new culture-independent stand-alone test for direct detection of Campylobacter from stool specimens6. Early and prompt identification of the reason for acute infectious gastroenteritis can reduce the severity of disease and help to administer timely and appropriate treatment and to implement infection control precautions in healthcare settings, such as isolation of the patients. 

When prompt diagnosis matters

Orion GenRead® Campylobacter is a molecular test intended for detection of Campylobacter species C. jejuni, C. coli and C.lari directly from faecal samples collected from patients suspected of having Campylobacter infection.

Orion GenRead Campylobacter is a ready-to-use kit which offers its users fast and accurate results. The test kit is used together with the Orion GenRead Instrument and is suitable for laboratories of various settings and sizes.

The Orion GenRead system is based on SIBA technology, Orion Diagnostica’s proprietary isothermal nucleic acid amplification technique.

Orion GenRead Campylobacter


Published October 24, 2016


 1. World Health Organization. (2012). The global view of campylobacteriosis: report of an expert consultation. Geneva: WHO; 2012. [Cited 10 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/80751/1/9789241564601_eng.pdf
2. Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, Gibb HJ, Hald T, Lake RJ, et al. World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010. PLoS Med 2015; 12(12): e1001923. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923
3. World Health Organization. (2011). Campylobacter. Fact sheet No255. [Cited 10 Aug 2016]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs255/en/
4. Humpries, R. M. and Linscott A.J. (2015). Laboratory diagnosis of bacterial gastroenteritis. Clinical microbiology  reviews, 28, 3-31.
5. Gütler, M., Alter, T., Kasimir, S. & Fehlhaber, K. (2005). The importance of Campylobacter coli in human campylobacteriosis: prevalence and genetic characterization. Epidemiology & Infection, 133, 1081-1087.
6. Hurd, S., Patrick, M., Hatch, J., Clogher, P., Wymore, K., Cronquist, A.B., Segler, S., Robinson, T., Hanna, S., Smith, G. & Fitzgerald, C. (2012). Clinical Laboratory Practices for the Isolation and Identification of Campylobacter in Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) Sites: Baseline Information for Understanding Changes in Surveillance Data. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 54, S440-S445.
7. Allos, B.M., Iovine, N.M. & Blaser, M.J. (2015). Campylobacter jejuni and related species, in Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious diseases, Eight edition, Chapter 218, p. 2485-2493.
8. Anderson, N.W., Buchan, B.W. & Ledeboer, N.A. (2014). Comparison of the BD MAX Enteric Bacterial Panel to Routine Culture Methods for Detection of Campylobacter, Enterohemorrhagic, Escherichia coli (O157), Salmonella, and Shigella Isolates in Preserved Stool Specimens. Journal of  Clinical Microbiology, 52, 1222-1224.
9. Maher, M., Finnegan, C., Collins, E., Ward, B., Carroll, C. & Cormican, M. (2003). Evaluation of Culture Methods and a DNA Probe-Based PCR Assay for Detection of Campylobacter Species in Clinical Specimens of Feces. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 41, 2980-2986.
10.  Navidad, J.F., Griswold, D.J., Gradus, M.S. & Bhattacharyya, S. (2013). Evaluation of Luminex xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Analyte-Specific Reagents for High-Throughput, Simultaneous Detection of Bacteria, Viruses, and Parasites of Clinical and Public Health Importance. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 51, 3018-3024.
11.  Buchan, B.W., Olson, W.J., Pezewski, M., Marcon, M.J., Novicki, T., Uphoff, T.S., Chandramohan, L., Revell, P. & Ledeboer, N.A. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of a Real-Time PCR Assay for Identification of Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter (Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli), and Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli Isolates in Stool Specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 51, 4001-4007.
12.  Onori, M., Coltella, L., Mancinelli, L., Argentieri, M., Menichella, D., Villani, A., Grandin, A., Valentini, D., Raponi, M. & Russo, C. (2014). Evaluation of a multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of bacterial and viral enteropathogens in stool samples of paediatric patients. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 79, 149-154.
13.  Besséde, E., Delcamp, A., Sifré, E., Buissonniére, A. & Mégraud, F. (2011). New methods for detection of campylobacters in stool samples in comparison to culture. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 49, 941-944.
14.  Ghosh, R., Uppal, B., Aggarwal, P., Chakravarti, A., Kumar Jha, A. & Dubey, A.P. (2014). A comparative study of conventional and molecular techniques in diagnosis of campylobacter gastroenteritis in children. Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science, 44, no. 1, 42-48.