In 2008, Figueras et al. [18] designed an RFLP identification method based on the digestion of the 16S rRNA gene with the MseI endonuclease; this was able to identify the six PD0332991 species so far described (A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. cibarius, A. skirrowii, A. nitrofigilis, and Arcobacter halophilus). This method was recently updated with the inclusion of additional endonucleases (MnlI and BfaI), and is able to identify the 17 Arcobacter

spp. described at this website the time of publication [19]. The prevalence of Arcobacter spp. in different matrices such as water, food, and faeces is underestimated because of the limitations of the identification methods used to recognize all species [1]. Despite this, no study has comparatively evaluated the performance of the most commonly used identification methods. The aim of this study was to test the performance of five molecular identification methods across all Arcobacter spp. The compared methods were selected because they target a higher number of Arcobacter species [9, 14–18]. Furthermore, a literature review was performed to analyse the results that have been obtained using click here these methods since their publication. Methods

The five identification methods were compared using 95 different strains, these included type and reference strains, as well as field strains. These strains represented all currently accepted Arcobacter species (Additional file 1: Table S1), but did not include the recently described Arcobacter anaerophilus[8]. The five molecular methods investigated were selected because they targeted a higher number of species. They were as follows: two m-PCRs designed for A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, and A. skirrowii[14, 15]; a PCR method that Amoxicillin targets A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. skirrowii, and A. cibarius[16]; and two methods that target A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. skirrowii, A. cibarius, and A. thereius (the m-PCR method described by Douidah et al. [9]), or A. nitrofigilis and A. halophilus (the 16S rRNA-RFLP method described

by Figueras et al.[18]). As the A. trophiarum PCR identification of De Smet et al. [17] was designed to complement the previously published m-PCR of Douidah et al. [9], both methods were considered to be a single one when evaluating their performance (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1 Performance of five molecular methods used for the identification of Arcobacter species in relation to a reference method a     Houf et al. [[14]] Kabeya et al. [[15]] Figueras et al. [[18]] Pentimalli et al. [[16]] Douidah et al. [[9]] De Smet et al. [[17]]b Targeted species Strainsc A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A. butzleri 21 16S 100 0 23S 4.8 6 16S 100 3 16S 100 4 23S 100 4 A. cryaerophilus 19 23S 100 11 23S 100d 8 16S 63.2 0 gyrA 100 1 gyrA 100 1 A. skirrowii 5 16S 100 4 23S 100 3 16S 100 0 gyrA 60 2 23S 100 0 A. cibarius 8             16S 100 0 gyrA 0e 0 23S 100 0 A. thereius 5                         23S 100 0 A.