Identification of Corynebacterium Species

UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations
Identification of Corynebacterium species
Issued by the Standards Unit, Microbiology Services, PHE

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 1 of 24
Crown copyright 2014
Acknowledgments
UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations (SMIs) are developed under the
auspices of Public Health England (PHE) working in partnership with the National
Health Service (NHS), Public Health Wales and with the professional organisations
whose logos are displayed below and listed on the website https://www.gov.uk/ukstandards-for-microbiology-investigations-smi-quality-and-consistency-in-clinicallaboratories. SMIs are developed, reviewed and revised by various working groups
which are overseen by a steering committee (see
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/standards-for-microbiology-investigationssteering-committee).
The contributions of many individuals in clinical, specialist and reference laboratories
who have provided information and comments during the development of this
document are acknowledged. We are grateful to the Medical Editors for editing the
medical content.
For further information please contact us at:
Standards Unit
Microbiology Services
Public Health England
61 Colindale Avenue
London NW9 5EQ
E-mail: standards@phe.gov.uk
Website: https://www.gov.uk/uk-standards-for-microbiology-investigations-smi-qualityand-consistency-in-clinical-laboratories
UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations are produced in association with:
Logos correct at time of publishing.

UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations | Issued by the Standards Unit, Public Health England
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
AMENDMENT TABLE ............................................................................................................. 4
UK STANDARDS FOR MICROBIOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS: SCOPE AND PURPOSE ....... 6
SCOPE OF DOCUMENT ......................................................................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 9
TECHNICAL INFORMATION/LIMITATIONS ......................................................................... 10
1
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 12
TARGET ORGANISMS .............................................................................................. 12
IDENTIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 12
IDENTIFICATION OF CORYNEBACTERIUM SPECIES............................................ 18
REPORTING .............................................................................................................. 19
REFERRALS.............................................................................................................. 20
NOTIFICATION TO PHE OR EQUIVALENT IN THE DEVOLVED

ADMINISTRATIONS .................................................................................................. 21
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 22

Amendment Table
Each SMI method has an individual record of amendments. The current amendments
are listed on this page. The amendment history is available from
standards@phe.gov.uk.
New or revised documents should be controlled within the laboratory in accordance
with the local quality management system.
Amendment No/Date.
7/29.10.14
Issue no. discarded.
Insert Issue no.
4.1
Section(s) involved
Amendment
Whole document.
Hyperlinks updated to gov.uk.
Page 2.
Updated logos added.
Identification.
Updates have been done on 3.4 and 3.5 to reflect

standards in practice.
Subsection 3.5 has been updated to include the
Rapid Molecular Typing Methods.
Amendment No/Date.
6/18.06.14
Issue no. discarded.
3.2
Insert Issue no.
Section(s) involved
Amendment
Scope of document.
The title of SMI document ID 3 referred to in the

text has been updated.
Taxonomy updated.
Introduction.
More information has been added to the

Characteristics section. Removal of two sentences
on PCR from this section.
Section on Principles of Identification has been
updated to reflect the four preliminary tests used in
identification of Corynebacterium species.
Technical
Information/Limitations.
Updated to include information regarding use of

sheep blood agar media and variability of the
nitrate test.
Safety considerations.
This section has been updated to include the

laboratory - acquired infections as well as


guidelines laid out by the DH Green book.
Updates have been done on 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 to
reflect standards in practice.
The table has also been updated with references
and two more columns to include the catalase and
pyrazinamidase tests.
The footnote in the table has also been updated.
Identification.
TP 36 Urease Test has been hyperlinked.
Variable test results for nitrate test in C.

pseudotuberculosis have also been
mentioned.
Referral of isolate to the Reference

Laboratory has been updated.
References used for the table are listed in

the footnote.
Subsection 3.5 has been updated to include the

Rapid Molecular Methods.
Identification Flowchart.
Reporting.
Addition of flowchart for identification of

Corynebacterium species has been developed for
guidance.
Subsections 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 have been
updated to reflect reporting practice.
The webpage link in section 5.4 and 5.5 has been
removed as it is not accessible.
Referral.
The address of the Reference Laboratory has

been updated.
Whole document.
Document presented in a new format.
References.
Some references updated.

UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations#:

Scope and Purpose
Users of SMIs
SMIs are primarily intended as a general resource for practising professionals

operating in the field of laboratory medicine and infection specialties in the UK.
SMIs provide clinicians with information about the available test repertoire and
the standard of laboratory services they should expect for the investigation of
infection in their patients, as well as providing information that aids the
electronic ordering of appropriate tests.
SMIs provide commissioners of healthcare services with the appropriateness

and standard of microbiology investigations they should be seeking as part of
the clinical and public health care package for their population.
Background to SMIs
SMIs comprise a collection of recommended algorithms and procedures covering all
stages of the investigative process in microbiology from the pre-analytical (clinical
syndrome) stage to the analytical (laboratory testing) and post analytical (result
interpretation and reporting) stages.
Syndromic algorithms are supported by more detailed documents containing advice
on the investigation of specific diseases and infections. Guidance notes cover the
clinical background, differential diagnosis, and appropriate investigation of particular
clinical conditions. Quality guidance notes describe laboratory processes which
underpin quality, for example assay validation.
Standardisation of the diagnostic process through the application of SMIs helps to
assure the equivalence of investigation strategies in different laboratories across the
UK and is essential for public health surveillance, research and development activities.
Equal Partnership Working

SMIs are developed in equal partnership with PHE, NHS, Royal College of
Pathologists and professional societies.
The list of participating societies may be found at https://www.gov.uk/uk-standards-formicrobiology-investigations-smi-quality-and-consistency-in-clinical-laboratories.
Inclusion of a logo in an SMI indicates participation of the society in equal partnership
and support for the objectives and process of preparing SMIs. Nominees of
professional societies are members of the Steering Committee and Working Groups
which develop SMIs. The views of nominees cannot be rigorously representative of
the members of their nominating organisations nor the corporate views of their
organisations. Nominees act as a conduit for two way reporting and dialogue.
Representative views are sought through the consultation process.
SMIs are developed, reviewed and updated through a wide consultation process.
Microbiology is used as a generic term to include the two GMC-recognised specialties of Medical Microbiology (which includes
Bacteriology, Mycology and Parasitology) and Medical Virology.

Quality Assurance
NICE has accredited the process used by the SMI Working Groups to produce SMIs.
The accreditation is applicable to all guidance produced since October 2009. The
process for the development of SMIs is certified to ISO 9001:2008.
SMIs represent a good standard of practice to which all clinical and public health
microbiology laboratories in the UK are expected to work. SMIs are NICE accredited
and represent neither minimum standards of practice nor the highest level of complex
laboratory investigation possible. In using SMIs, laboratories should take account of
local requirements and undertake additional investigations where appropriate. SMIs
help laboratories to meet accreditation requirements by promoting high quality
practices which are auditable. SMIs also provide a reference point for method
development.
The performance of SMIs depends on competent staff and appropriate quality
reagents and equipment. Laboratories should ensure that all commercial and in-house
tests have been validated and shown to be fit for purpose. Laboratories should
participate in external quality assessment schemes and undertake relevant internal
quality control procedures.
Patient and Public Involvement

The SMI Working Groups are committed to patient and public involvement in the
development of SMIs. By involving the public, health professionals, scientists and
voluntary organisations the resulting SMI will be robust and meet the needs of the
user. An opportunity is given to members of the public to contribute to consultations
through our open access website.
Information Governance and Equality

PHE is a Caldicott compliant organisation. It seeks to take every possible precaution
to prevent unauthorised disclosure of patient details and to ensure that patient-related
records are kept under secure conditions.
The development of SMIs are subject to PHE Equality objectives
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england/about/equalityand-diversity. The SMI Working Groups are committed to achieving the equality
objectives by effective consultation with members of the public, partners, stakeholders
and specialist interest groups.
Legal Statement
Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of SMIs, PHE and any supporting
organisation, shall, to the greatest extent possible under any applicable law, exclude
liability for all losses, costs, claims, damages or expenses arising out of or connected
with the use of an SMI or any information contained therein. If alterations are made to
an SMI, it must be made clear where and by whom such changes have been made.
The evidence base and microbial taxonomy for the SMI is as complete as possible at
the time of issue. Any omissions and new material will be considered at the next
review. These standards can only be superseded by revisions of the standard,
legislative action, or by NICE accredited guidance.
SMIs are Crown copyright which should be acknowledged where appropriate.
Suggested Citation for this Document
Public Health England. (2014). Identification of Corynebacterium species. UK

Standards for Microbiology Investigations. ID 2 Issue 4.1. https://www.gov.uk/ukstandards-for-microbiology-investigations-smi-quality-and-consistency-in-clinicallaboratories

Scope of Document
This SMI describes the identification to species level of Corynebacterium diphtheriae,
Corynebacterium ulcerans and Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis isolated from
throat, skin and other sites. These organisms may be isolated from suspected cases
of classical diphtheria, cutaneous diphtheria and very rarely from other clinical
infections such as pharyngitis or chronic skin infections. The importance of toxin
production by this species in the pathogenesis of disease is emphasised.
The document also describes the identification of non-toxigenic species,
Corynebacterium jeikeium, Corynebacterium striatum and other clinically significant
species. Arcanobacterium haemolyticum, formerly known as Corynebacterium
haemolyticum is covered in ID 3 - Identification of Listeria species and other NonSporing Gram Positive Rods (except Corynebacterium).
This SMI covers four tests for the preliminary identification of pathogenic
Corynebacterium species and recommends that the organisms be sent to the
Reference Laboratory for confirmation of identification and toxin testing if required.
This SMI should be used in conjunction with other SMIs.
Introduction
Taxonomy1,2
There are currently 112 species and 11 subspecies in this genus3. All
Corynebacterium species that have genetic and chemotaxonomic features
inconsistent with those currently attributed to this genus have been reassigned to
other genera. Conversely, relevant taxa assigned to other genera and those with
Corynebacterium-like features, have been added to the genus4. Of these, 55 species
are occasional or extremely rare causes of infection in humans or are transmitted to
humans by zoonotic contact, with the remaining species having been recovered solely
from animals or birds, the environment, water, foodstuffs or synthetic materials.
The potentially toxigenic corynebacteria comprise C. diphtheriae,
C. pseudotuberculosis and C. ulcerans. C. diphtheriae consists of four biovars: gravis,
mitis, intermedius and belfanti.
Characteristics
Corynebacterium species are Gram positive non-motile rods, often with clubbed ends,
occurring singly or in pairs. Some cells may stain unevenly giving a beaded
appearance. Their size is between 2-6m in length and 0.5m in diameter. They
group together in a characteristic way, which has been described as the form of a "V",
"palisades", or "Chinese letters". Metachromatic granules are usually present
representing stored phosphate regions. They are aerobic or facultatively anaerobic
and exhibit a fermentative metabolism (carbohydrates to lactic acid) under certain
conditions. They are fastidious organisms, growing slowly even on enriched medium.
Agar containing blood and potassium tellurite, such as Hoyle's tellurite medium,
serves as a selective and differential medium. On blood agar, they form small greyish
colonies with a granular appearance, mostly translucent, but with opaque centres,
convex, with continuous borders. Their optimum growth temperature is 37C.

C. diphtheriae grows as pinpoint grey/black colonies on Hoyles tellurite agar in 1618hr and produces characteristic colonies after 48hr. Isolates of potentially toxigenic
Corynebacterium species will also grow on blood agar. Colonial morphology varies
among the species. C. ulcerans and C. pseudotuberculosis colonies may be slightly
-haemolytic on blood agar.
C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans and C. pseudotuberculosis are facultatively anaerobic,
non-sporing, non-capsulated and non-acid-fast. These organisms are non-motile and
catalase positive.
C. ulcerans and C. pseudotuberculosis are both urease positive which may be used to
distinguish them presumptively from C. diphtheriae.
Strains of these species can all harbour the phage borne diphtheria tox gene, which is
required for the production of toxin5. Toxigenic strains may cause diphtheria or
diphtheria-like illness. Possible toxigenic strains of Corynebacterium species should
be referred to the Reference Laboratory for detection of toxin production as soon as
possible.
Non toxigenic strains of corynebacteria eg C. ulcerans, C. jeikeium, C. striatum and
non-toxigenic C. diphtheriae are also known to cause infections in humans including
pulmonary infection, leukaemia and endocarditis. Both C. jeikeium and C. striatum are
non-haemolytic, urease negative and catalase positive6.
Principles of Identification
Isolates from primary culture are identified by colonial appearance, Gram stain, and
four preliminary tests (this includes nitrate, urease, catalase and pyrazinamidase
tests) which permit the presumptive identification of the potentially toxigenic
Corynebacterium species within 4hr. Additional identification may be made using a
commercial identification kit in conjunction with toxin testing. It is advisable that
suspected toxigenic cultures are sent promptly to the Streptococcus and Diphtheria
Reference Unit (SDRU) for confirmation of identification and toxigenicity testing.
Use of Alberts stain is not recommended in this SMI, as metachromatic granules are
not specific to C. diphtheriae or any of the potentially toxigenic corynebacteria.
The interpretation of the clinical significance of Corynebacterium isolated from
microbiological samples can be problematic. Corynebacterium isolated as a
predominant organism from a specimen from a normally sterile site, wound, abscess
or purulent sputum, from more than one blood culture set or present at 104 cfu/mL in
a pure culture from urine should be considered for identification to species level. The
clinical significance is strengthened when isolating Corynebacterium species from
multiple samples or when they are seen in a Gram stained smear as the predominant
organism or associated with a significant leucocyte response7.
Technical Information/Limitations
Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis
C. pseudotuberculosis can give a variable nitrate test result. This is because it
consists of two biovars: biovar equi (from horses or cattle) that reduces nitrate and the
biovar ovis (from sheep or goats) that fails to do so6.

Agar Media
The classic colonial morphology apparently develops better on media containing
sheep blood rather than horse in some Corynebacterium species. For example, the
degree of haemolysis in Arcanobacterium haemolyticum, formerly known as
Corynebacterium haemolyticum is far greater on sheep blood agar plate than most
other corynebacteria8.

Safety Considerations9-25
C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans and C. pseudotubercolosis are Hazard Group 2 organisms,

and in some cases the nature of the work may dictate full Containment Level 3
conditions. All laboratories should handle specimens as if potentially high risk.
All suspected isolates of potentially toxigenic corynebacteria should always be
handled in a microbiological safety cabinet. For the urease test, a urea slope is
considered safer than a liquid medium.
C. diphtheriae and C. ulcerans cause severe and sometimes fatal diseases.
Laboratory acquired infections have been reported26,27. The organism infects primarily
by the respiratory route. Vaccination against diphtheria is available; guidance is given
in the DH Green Book28. In addition, all staff that may be exposed to diphtheria in the
course of their work should be protected by immunisation and exceptions to this
recommendation are those who have had a booster within the last 10 years or have
had an adverse reaction to immunisation28,29.
Diphtheria antitoxin for the treatment of clinical cases is distributed by PHE
Immunisation Department and should be given without waiting for bacteriological
confirmation.
Refer to current guidance on the safe handling of all Hazard Group 2 organisms
documented in this SMI.
Laboratory procedures that give rise to infectious aerosols must be conducted in a
microbiological safety cabinet17.
The above guidance should be supplemented with local COSHH and risk
assessments.
Compliance with postal and transport regulations is essential.
Target Organisms
Corynebacterium species which are potentially toxigenic1

Corynebacterium diphtheriae var belfanti, Corynebacterium diphtheriae var gravis,
Corynebacterium diphtheriae var intermedius, Corynebacterium diphtheriae var mitis,
Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis, Corynebacterium ulcerans
Corynebacterium species which are non-toxigenic6
Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis, Corynebacterium
ulcerans, Corynebacterium jeikium, Corynebacterium striatum
Other Corynebacterium species have been known to cause human infection2.
Identification
3.1
Microscopic Appearance
Gram stain (TP 39 - Staining Procedures)

Gram positive rods, pleomorphic, slightly curved with tapered or clubbed ends.


Cells may occur singly or in pairs, often in a V formation (forming Chinese letters).
Cells usually stain weakly and unevenly giving a beaded appearance.
3.2
Primary Isolation Media
Blood agar - skin swabs incubated in 5-10% CO2 at 35-37C for 40-48hr and throat
swabs incubated anaerobically at 35-37C for 16-24hr. -haemolytic streptococci may
also be present, particularly in throat swabs.
Hoyles tellurite agar incubated in air at 35-37C for 16-48hr.
3.3
Colonial Appearance
Appearance varies among species on blood agar plates. For more information, refer to
the table in Section 3.4 Test Procedures below.
3.4
Test Procedures
3.4.1 Biochemical tests

Rapid (4hr) tests should be performed for urease, pyrazinamidase, catalase and
nitrate reduction.
Catalase test (TP 8 - Catalase Test)
All potentially toxigenic corynebacteria are catalase positive and for non-toxigenic
Corynebacterium species, the catalase test results are varied.
Pyrazinamidase test
All potentially toxigenic corynebacteria (C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans and
C. pseudotuberculosis) are pyrazinamidase negative while other corynebacteria are
positive.
Urease test (TP 36 - Urease Test)
The urease test is used to determine the ability of an organism to split urea, through
the production of the enzyme urease.
C. ulcerans and C. pseudotuberculosis are urease positive.
Nitrate Reduction test - see table below
Culture media
Biochemical tests
Strain
Hoyles tellurite agar
Blood agar
Nitrate
Urease*
Catalase
Pyrazinamidase
C.
diphtheriae
biotype
biovar
30
gravis
dull, grey/black, opaque

colonies, 1.5-2.0mm in
diameter, matt surface,
friable, tending to break
into small segments
when touched with a
straight wire
Non
haemolytic
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
C.
diphtheriae
biotype
biovar
30
mitis
grey/black, opaque
colonies, 1.5 - 2.0mm in
diameter, entire edge and
glossy smooth surface;
size variation is common
colonies
exhibit a small
zone of haemolysis
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
C.
diphtheriae
small, grey/black, shiny

surface, discrete,
colonies
exhibit a small
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative


biotype
biovar
intermedius
translucent colonies, 0.51.0mm in diameter
zone of haemolysis
C.
diphtheriae
biotype
biovar
30
belfanti
grey/black, opaque
colonies, 1.5-2.0mm in
diameter, entire edge and
glossy smooth surface;
size variation is common
colonies
exhibit a small
zone of haemolysis
Negative
Negative
Positive
Negative
C.
30
ulcerans
grey/black, very dry

opaque colonies
colonies
exhibit a small
zone of haemolysis
Negative
Positive
Positive
Negative
grey/black, very dry

opaque colonies
colonies
exhibit a small
zone of haemolysis
Positive/
Negative
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
Positive
Positive
Negative
Positive
Positive
30
C. pseudotuberculosis
1,6,31
Nonhaemolytic
C.
1,2,31
striatum
grey/black, colonies
white moist
smooth
colonies >
2mm after
24hr
Positive/
Negative
Non
haemolytic
C. jeikeium
grey/black, colonies
grey/white low
convex
colonies
Negative
Refer to TP 36 - Urease Test
*If results of these 4hr tests indicate Corynebacterium species, immediately inform medical microbiologist and refer
isolate to the Reference Laboratory. C. xerosis can be used as a positive control for this test.
If these preliminary tests do not indicate Corynebacterium species then consider further identification tests if clinically
indicated.
Result for the nitrate test can be variable for C. pseudotuberculosis. This is because it consists of two biovars: biovar
equi (from horses or cattle) that reduces nitrate and the biovar ovis (from sheep or goats) that fails to do so.
Use commercial identification kit and refer isolate to the Reference Laboratory if clinically indicated.
Note: Fresh culture of control organism is advisable.
These test results are consistent with taxonomy from widely published systems
1,2,6,30,31
It is important that a preliminary identification of possible colonies of C. diphtheriae or

other potentially toxigenic Corynebacterium species is made as rapidly as possible
with the use of 4hr tests. The preliminary tests provide an indication of the likely
presence or absence of C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans or C. pseudotuberculosis. The
results should be considered together with the clinical details.
All suspected isolates of C. diphtheriae or other potentially toxigenic Corynebacterium
species should be sub-cultured to a blood agar plate for purity and to a blood agar
slope (preferably) or Loefflers media (for possible referral to the Reference
Laboratory) at the time that the tests are set up.

3.4.2 Commercial Identification Systems

Laboratories should follow manufacturers instructions and rapid tests and kits should
be validated and be shown to be fit for purpose prior to use.
3.4.3 Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time of Flight

Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF)
MALDI-TOF MS analysis is a routinely used tool in many microbiology laboratories,
whereby proteins liberated from bacteria are ionized and detected by a mass
spectrometer (MS), the spectrum is analysed, and its pattern is compared to entries
found in a database, giving rise to a degree of match32. This technology is touted as
being revolutionary, because it does not require extensive training or expertise in
mass spectrometry or chemistry to use. The cost for consumables is described as
relatively low per sample, excluding the cost of the MALDI-TOF instrument4.
MALDI-TOF MS has been used successfully to identify potentially toxigenic
Corynebacterium species at the species level in clinical isolates within 15 minutes33.
Thus, this technology could be used as a rapid screening method helping to decide
whether suspicious colonies should be analysed for the presence of the tox gene by
real-time PCR.
MALDI-TOF can also discriminate Corynebacterium aurimucosum from
Corynebacterium minutissimum, two closely related Corynebacterium species
previously considered difficult to differentiate34.
3.4.4 Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs)

PCR is usually considered to be a good method for bacterial detection as it is simple,
rapid, sensitive and specific. The basis for PCR diagnostic applications in microbiology
is the detection of infectious agents and the discrimination of non-pathogenic from
pathogenic strains by virtue of specific genes. However, it does have limitations.
Although the 16S rRNA gene is generally targeted for the design of species-specific
PCR primers for identification, designing primers is difficult when the sequences of the
homologous genes have high similarity.
PCR for Corynebacterium diphtheriae is rapid and can be completed within 4hr of
receipt of the strain, although toxin production must always be verified by the
phenotypic test for toxigenicity35. A PCR directed at the A subunit of the diphtheria
toxin gene can also be used to detect the tox gene, the structural gene for diphtheria
toxin, although it does not confirm toxin production29. Molecular characterization
based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of some of the non-toxigenic strains has
demonstrated that the bacteria often contain functional dtxR proteins, which could
potentially produce toxin36.
3.5
Further Identification
Rapid Molecular Methods

A variety of rapid typing methods have been developed for isolates from clinical
samples; these include molecular techniques such as Amplified Fragment Length
Polymorphism (AFLP), 16S rRNA gene (rDNA) sequence analysis, Multi-locus
Sequence typing (MLST) and Whole Genome Sequencing. All of these approaches
enable subtyping of unrelated strains, but do so with different accuracy, discriminatory
power, and reproducibility.

However, some of these methods remain accessible to reference laboratories only
and are difficult to implement for routine bacterial identification in clinical laboratories.
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
Whole genome sequencing (also known as full genome sequencing, complete
genome sequencing, or entire genome sequencing), is a laboratory process that
determines the complete DNA sequence of an organism's genome at a single time.
This entails sequencing all of an organism's chromosomal DNA as well as DNA
contained in the mitochondria.
A number of Corynebacterium species have had complete genomes sequenced4.
Genome sequences are available in the public database for C. glutamicum,
C. efficiens, C. diphtheriae C. jeikeium, C. pseudotuberculosis and C. ulcerans. This
has also aided in the identification of Corynebacterium species.
Multi-locus Sequence Typing (MLST)
MLST measures the DNA sequence variations in a set of housekeeping genes directly
and characterizes strains by their unique allelic profiles. The principle of MLST is
simple: the technique involves PCR amplification followed by DNA sequencing.
Nucleotide differences between strains can be checked at a variable number of genes
depending on the degree of discrimination desired. The technique is highly
discriminatory, as it detects all the nucleotide polymorphisms within a gene rather than
just those non-synonymous changes that alter the electrophoretic mobility of the
protein product. One of the advantages of MLST over other molecular typing methods
is that sequence data are portable between laboratories and have led to the creation
of global databases that allow for exchange of molecular typing data via the internet37.
MLST has been used successfully for characterisation of Corynebacterium diphtheriae
as has been evaluated in various reports and it has also been found to provide a good
understanding of the diversity of the pathogen38-40.
Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP)
Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism is a high-resolution whole genome
methodology used as a tool for rapid and cost-effective analysis of genetic diversity
within bacterial genomes. It is useful for a broad range of applications such as
identification and subtyping of microorganisms from clinical samples, for identification
of outbreak genotypes, for studies of micro and macro-variation, and for population
genetics41,42.
Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP), a gel-based method can also be
used for further identification and has been successful in the discrimination and
differentiation of C. diphtheriae isolates. This has been evaluated as a quicker, more
affordable method to ribotyping (which is the current gold standard for typing of
C. diphtheriae. This method is more adaptable especially in laboratories that have
limited funding and equipment43,44.
16S rRNA gene (rDNA) sequence analysis
A genotypic identification method, 16S rRNA gene sequencing is used for
phylogenetic studies and has subsequently been found to be capable of re-classifying
bacteria into completely new species, or even genera. It has also been used to
describe new species that have never been successfully cultured.


The use of molecular genetic methods such as 16S rRNA gene (rDNA) sequence
analysis has facilitated a much tighter circumscription of the genus Corynebacterium,
and the availability of comparative 16S rRNA gene sequence data with improved
phenotypic data has resulted in much improved and more reliable species
identification; however, rpoB gene sequences are used as they are more polymorphic
than the 16S rDNA and can ensure reliable phylogenetic studies34,45. The only
drawback with using the rpoB gene sequencing is that it is a time-consuming process
which requires training staff to a competent level33.
3.6
Storage and Referral
Refer the presumptive C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans or C. pseudotuberculosis isolate on

a Loeffler or blood agar slope immediately to the Reference Laboratory.


Clinical Specimen
Screening, diagnosis/investigation of cases, contacts/carriers
Blood agar- skin swabs incubated in 5-10% CO2 at 35-37C for 40-48hr and throat
swabs incubated anaerobically at 35-37C for 16-24hr.
Tellurite agar incubated in air at 35-37C for 16-46hr.
Grey/black colonies
Gram stain : Gram positive rods
Nitrate
4hr
Catalase
4hr
Blood agar
Pyrazinamidase
4hr
Pure culture
Urease
4hr
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
C. diphtheriae var
gravis
C. diphtheriae var mitis
C. diphtheriae var
intermedius
C. striatum
C. pseudotuberculoisis
var equi
C. diphtheriae var
belfanti
C. ulcerans
var ovis
C. striatum
C. jeikium
All Corynebacterium sp
Gardnerella vaginalis
(formerly known as
Corynebacterium
vaginalis)
C. striatum
C. jeikium
C. diphtheriae
C. ulcerans
C. ulcerans
C. diphtheriae var mitis

C. diphtheriae var gravis
C. diphtheriae var
intermedius
C. diphtheriae var belfanti
C. striatum
C. jeikium
For further identification, if clinically indicated, refer to the Reference Laboratory

Reporting
5.1
Presumptive Identification
Presumptive identification may be made if appropriate growth characteristics, colonial

appearance, Gram stain of the culture, 4hr test results and rapid methods are
demonstrated.
5.2
Confirmation of Identification
Confirmation of identification and toxigenicity are undertaken only by the Respiratory

and Vaccine Preventable Bacteria Reference Unit (RVPBRU) PHE Colindale.
5.3
Medical Microbiologist
Inform the medical microbiologist of presumptive and confirmed C. diphtheriae,

C. ulcerans or C. pseudotuberculosis species. The medical microbiologist should also
be informed if the request bears relevant information eg:
Suspected case of contact with diphtheria or foreign travel
Membranous/Pseudomembranous tonsillitis
Ulcerating skin lesions acquired overseas. The medical microbiologist should

be aware of possible factors from overseas protocols that could influence
results
Any of the above, with neurological or cardiological manifestations
History of farming or veterinary work
Any foreign travel to a high risk area, particularly Indian subcontinent, SouthEast Asia, Africa, South America, former Soviet States and Eastern Europe
For presumptive and confirmed non-toxigenic Corynebacterium species the medical

microbiologist should be informed when the request bears relevant information eg:
Cases of suspected endocarditis associated with appropriate specimen
Infection of indwelling medical devices (prosthetic valves, pacemakers,

peritoneal and vascular catheters, CSF shunts)
History of substance abuse, alcoholism, immunodeficiency or other serious

underlying disorder such as cancer, or patients receiving treatment for cancer,
inducing neutropenia and/or mucositis
Follow local protocols for reporting to the clinician.
5.4
CCDC
Refer to local Memorandum of Understanding.
5.5
Public Health England46
Refer to current guidelines on CIDSC and COSURV reporting.

As diphtheria is a notifiable disease in the UK, for public health management of cases,
contacts and outbreaks, all suspected cases should be notified immediately to the
local Public Health England Centres.

All clinically significant isolates should be notified by the diagnostic laboratories to
ensure urgent initiation of proper procedures and all such isolates should be referred
to the national reference laboratory for toxigenicity testing.
5.6
Infection Prevention and Control Teams
Inform the infection prevention and control team of presumptive and confirmed
isolates of C. diphtheriae according to local protocols.
Referrals
6.1
Reference Laboratory
Contact appropriate devolved nation reference laboratory for information on the tests
available, turnaround times, transport procedure and any other requirements for
sample submission:
Potentially toxigenic corynebacteria (C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans,
C. pseudotuberculosis)
Streptococcus and Diphtheria Reference Section
WHO Global Collaborating Centre for Streptococcal and Diphtheria Infections
Respiratory and Vaccine Preventable Bacteria Reference Unit
61 Colindale Avenue
London
NW9 5EQ
https://www.gov.uk/rvpbru-reference-and-diagnostic-services
Other Corynebacterium species
Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infections Reference Unit
(AMRHAI)
61 Colindale Avenue
London
NW9 5EQ
https://www.gov.uk/amrhai-reference-unit-reference-and-diagnostic-services
Contact PHEs main switchboard: Tel. +44 (0) 20 8200 4400
England and Wales
https://www.gov.uk/specialist-and-reference-microbiology-laboratory-tests-andservices
Scotland
http://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/reflab/index.aspx
Northern Ireland
http://www.belfasttrust.hscni.net/Laboratory-MortuaryServices.htm

7 Notification to PHE46,47 or Equivalent in the

Devolved Administrations48-51
The Health Protection (Notification) regulations 2010 require diagnostic laboratories to
notify Public Health England (PHE) when they identify the causative agents that are
listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Notifications must be provided in writing, on
paper or electronically, within seven days. Urgent cases should be notified orally and
as soon as possible, recommended within 24 hours. These should be followed up by
written notification within seven days.
For the purposes of the Notification Regulations, the recipient of laboratory
notifications is the local PHE Health Protection Team. If a case has already been
notified by a registered medical practitioner, the diagnostic laboratory is still required
to notify the case if they identify any evidence of an infection caused by a notifiable
causative agent.
Notification under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 does not
replace voluntary reporting to PHE. The vast majority of NHS laboratories voluntarily
report a wide range of laboratory diagnoses of causative agents to PHE and many
PHE Health protection Teams have agreements with local laboratories for urgent
reporting of some infections. This should continue.
Note: The Health Protection Legislation Guidance (2010) includes reporting of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) & Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs), Healthcare
Associated Infections (HCAIs) and CreutzfeldtJakob disease (CJD) under
Notification Duties of Registered Medical Practitioners: it is not noted under
Notification Duties of Diagnostic Laboratories.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england/about/ourgovernance#health-protection-regulations-2010
Other arrangements exist in Scotland48,49, Wales50 and Northern Ireland51.

References
1. Funke G, von Graevenitz A, Clarridge JE, III, Bernard KA. Clinical microbiology of coryneform
bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997;10:125-59.
2. Clarridge JE, Weissfeld AS. Corynebacterial Infections. In: Wentworth BB, editor. Diagnostic
Procedures for Bacterial Infections. 7th ed. Washington DC: American Public Health Association;
1987. p. 213-32.
3. Euzeby,JP. List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature - Genus Corynebacterium.
2013.
4. Bernard K. The genus corynebacterium and other medically relevant coryneform-like bacteria. J
Clin Microbiol 2012;50:3152-8.
5. Ryan KJ. Corynebacterium, Listeria, and Bacillus. In: Ryan KJRCG, editor. Sherris Medical
Microbiology: An Introduction to Infectious Diseases. 4 ed. USA: MCGraw Hill: 2004. p. 297-308.
6. Coyle MB, Lipsky BA. Coryneform bacteria in infectious diseases: clinical and laboratory aspects.
Clin Microbiol Rev 1990;3:227-46.
7. Efstratiou A, George RC. Laboratory guidelines for the diagnosis of infections caused by
Corynebacterium diphtheriae and C. ulcerans. World Health Organization. Commun Dis Public
Health 1999;2:250-7.
8. Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, et al. The Aerobic Gram- Positive Bacilli. Color Atlas and
Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wikins; 1997. p.
651-708.
9. European Parliament. UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations (SMIs) use the term "CE
marked leak proof container" to describe containers bearing the CE marking used for the collection
and transport of clinical specimens. The requirements for specimen containers are given in the EU
in vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive (98/79/EC Annex 1 B 2.1) which states: "The design
must allow easy handling and, where necessary, reduce as far as possible contamination of, and
leakage from, the device during use and, in the case of specimen receptacles, the risk of
contamination of the specimen. The manufacturing processes must be appropriate for these
purposes".
10. Official Journal of the European Communities. Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. 7-12-1998. p. 1-37.
11. Health and Safety Executive. Safe use of pneumatic air tube transport systems for pathology
specimens. 9/99.
12. Department for transport. Transport of Infectious Substances, 2011 Revision 5. 2011.
13. World Health Organization. Guidance on regulations for the Transport of Infectious Substances
2013-2014. 2012.
14. Home Office. Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. 2001 (as amended).
15. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. The Approved List of Biological Agents. Health and
Safety Executive. 2013. p. 1-32
16. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. Infections at work: Controlling the risks. Her
Majesty's Stationery Office. 2003.


17. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. Biological agents: Managing the risks in
laboratories and healthcare premises. Health and Safety Executive. 2005.
18. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. Biological Agents: Managing the Risks in
Laboratories and Healthcare Premises. Appendix 1.2 Transport of Infectious Substances Revision. Health and Safety Executive. 2008.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Safe Work Practices in Human and
Animal Medical Diagnostic Laboratories. MMWR Surveill Summ 2012;61:1-102.
20. Health and Safety Executive. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. The Control
of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. 5th ed. HSE Books; 2002.
21. Health and Safety Executive. Five Steps to Risk Assessment: A Step by Step Guide to a Safer and
Healthier Workplace. HSE Books. 2002.
22. Health and Safety Executive. A Guide to Risk Assessment Requirements: Common Provisions in
Health and Safety Law. HSE Books. 2002.
23. Health Services Advisory Committee. Safe Working and the Prevention of Infection in Clinical
Laboratories and Similar Facilities. HSE Books. 2003.
24. British Standards Institution (BSI). BS EN12469 - Biotechnology - performance criteria for
microbiological safety cabinets. 2000.
25. British Standards Institution (BSI). BS 5726:2005 - Microbiological safety cabinets. Information to
be supplied by the purchaser and to the vendor and to the installer, and siting and use of cabinets.
Recommendations and guidance. 24-3-2005. p. 1-14
26. Anon. Throat infection with toxigenic Corynebacterium diphtheriae acquired in a laboratory.
Commun Dis Rep CDR Wkly 1998;8:57-60.
27. Thilo W, Kiehl W, Geiss HK. A case report of laboratory-acquired diphtheria. Euro Surveill
1997;2:67-8.
28. Salisbury D, Ramsay M, Noakes K, editors. Immunisation against infectious disease 2006 - The
Green Book. Updated 04 November 2013. 3rd ed. Great Britain: The Stationery Office; 2013. p. 1514
29. Efstratiou A, Engler KH, Mazurova IK, Glushkevich T, Vuopio-Varkila J, Popovic T. Current
approaches to the laboratory diagnosis of diphtheria. J Infect Dis 2000;181 Suppl 1:S138-S145.
30. Efstratiou A, George RC. Microbiology and epidemiology of diphtheria. Rev Med Microbiol
1996;7:31-42.
31. Characters of Gram -positive Bacteria. In: Barrow GI, Feltham RKA, editors. Cowan and Steel's
Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1993. p. 70-2.
32. Vila J, Juiz P, Salas C, Almela M, de la Fuente CG, Zboromyrska Y, et al. Identification of clinically
relevant Corynebacterium spp., Arcanobacterium haemolyticum, and Rhodococcus equi by matrixassisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol 2012;50:17457.
33. Konrad R, Berger A, Huber I, Boschert V, Hormansdorfer S, Busch U, et al. Matrix-assisted laser
desorption/ionisation time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry as a tool for rapid diagnosis of
potentially toxigenic Corynebacterium species in the laboratory management of diphtheriaassociated bacteria. Euro Surveill 2010;15.


34. Khamis A, Raoult D, La SB. rpoB gene sequencing for identification of Corynebacterium species. J
Clin Microbiol 2004;42:3925-31.
35. Pallen MJ, Hay AJ, Puckey LH, Efstratiou A. Polymerase chain reaction for screening clinical
isolates of corynebacteria for the production of diphtheria toxin. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:353-6.
36. De Zoysa A, Efstratiou A, Hawkey PM. Molecular characterization of diphtheria toxin repressor
(dtxR) genes present in nontoxigenic Corynebacterium diphtheriae strains isolated in the United
Kingdom. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:223-8.
37. Feil EJ, Spratt BG. Recombination and the population structures of bacterial pathogens. Annu Rev
Microbiol 2001;55:561-90.
38. Patey O, Bimet F, Riegel P, Halioua B, Emond JP, Estrangin E, et al. Clinical and molecular study
of Corynebacterium diphtheriae systemic infections in France. Coryne Study Group. J Clin Microbiol
1997;35:441-5.
39. Zasada AA, Baczewska-Rej M, Wardak S. An increase in non-toxigenic Corynebacterium
diphtheriae infections in Poland--molecular epidemiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of strains
isolated from past outbreaks and those currently circulating in Poland. Int J Infect Dis
2010;14:e907-e912.
40. Farfour E, Badell E, Zasada A, Hotzel H, Tomaso H, Guillot S, et al. Characterization and
comparison of invasive Corynebacterium diphtheriae isolates from France and Poland. J Clin
Microbiol 2012;50:173-5.
41. Liu D. Identification, subtyping and virulence determination of Listeria monocytogenes, an important
foodborne pathogen. J Med Microbiol 2006;55:645-59.
42. Fonnesbech VB, Fussing V, Ojeniyi B, Gram L, Ahrens P. High-resolution genotyping of Listeria
monocytogenes by fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis compared to
pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis, ribotyping, and PCRrestriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. J Food Prot 2004;67:1656-65.
43. De Zoysa A, Efstratiou A. Use of amplified fragment length polymorphisms for typing
Corynebacterium diphtheriae. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:3843-5.
44. De Zoysa A, Hawkey P, Charlett A, Efstratiou A. Comparison of four molecular typing methods for
characterization of Corynebacterium diphtheriae and determination of transcontinental spread of C.
diphtheriae based on BstEII rRNA gene profiles. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:3626-35.
45. Khamis A, Raoult D, La SB. Comparison between rpoB and 16S rRNA gene sequencing for
molecular identification of 168 clinical isolates of Corynebacterium. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:1934-6.
46. Public Health England. Laboratory Reporting to Public Health England: A Guide for Diagnostic
Laboratories. 2013. p. 1-37.
47. Department of Health. Health Protection Legislation (England) Guidance. 2010. p. 1-112.
48. Scottish Government. Public Health (Scotland) Act. 2008 (as amended).
49. Scottish Government. Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008. Implementation of Part 2: Notifiable
Diseases, Organisms and Health Risk States. 2009.
50. The Welsh Assembly Government. Health Protection Legislation (Wales) Guidance. 2010.
51. Home Office. Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 Chapter 36. 1967 (as amended).


Identification of Corynebacterium Species

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identification of Corynebacterium Species

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identification of Corynebacterium Species

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Issued by the Standards Unit, Microbiology Services, PHE

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Logos correct at time of publishing.

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 2 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 12

TARGET ORGANISMS .............................................................................................. 12

IDENTIFICATION OF CORYNEBACTERIUM SPECIES............................................ 18

NOTIFICATION TO PHE OR EQUIVALENT IN THE DEVOLVED

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 3 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Issue no. discarded.

Insert Issue no.

Hyperlinks updated to gov.uk.

Updated logos added.

Updates have been done on 3.4 and 3.5 to reflect

Issue no. discarded.

Insert Issue no.

The title of SMI document ID 3 referred to in the

More information has been added to the

Updated to include information regarding use of

This section has been updated to include the

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 4 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

TP 36 Urease Test has been hyperlinked.

Variable test results for nitrate test in C.

Referral of isolate to the Reference

References used for the table are listed in

Subsection 3.5 has been updated to include the

Addition of flowchart for identification of

The address of the Reference Laboratory has

Document presented in a new format.

Some references updated.

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 5 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

UK Standards for Microbiology Investigations#:

SMIs are primarily intended as a general resource for practising professionals

SMIs provide commissioners of healthcare services with the appropriateness

Equal Partnership Working

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 6 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Patient and Public Involvement

Information Governance and Equality

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Suggested Citation for this Document

Public Health England. (2014). Identification of Corynebacterium species. UK

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 8 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 10 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 11 of 24

Identification of Corynebacterium species

C. diphtheriae, C. ulcerans and C. pseudotubercolosis are Hazard Group 2 organisms,

Corynebacterium species which are potentially toxigenic1

Gram stain (TP 39 - Staining Procedures)

Bacteriology Identification | ID 2 | Issue no: 4.1 | Issue date: 29.10.14 | Page: 12 of 24