实验动物与比较医学 ›› 2021, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (6): 521-527.DOI: 10.12300/j.issn.1674-5817.2021.104

• 技术与方法专题 • 上一篇    下一篇

2013—2020年7次实验动物病原菌项目国际比对结果分析

邢进, 冯育芳, 王洪, 张雪青, 高强, 岳秉飞, 付瑞   

  1. 中国食品药品检定研究院 实验动物资源研究所, 北京 102629
  • 收稿日期:2021-06-04 修回日期:2021-09-18 出版日期:2021-12-25 发布日期:2021-12-29
  • 作者简介:邢 进(1979—), 男, 研究员,博士, 研究方向: 实验动物微生物检测。E-mail: xjvet@nifdc.org.cn.中国食品药品检定研究院实验动物资源研究所研究员,硕士生导师; 主要研究方向为实验动物质量控制和标准化研究; 北京实验动物学会理事,中国兽医协会实验动物兽医分会委员; 参与完成国家科技支撑计划、国家自然科学基金和北京市科委资助项目等研究10余项; 多次获得中国实验动物学会和北京实验动物行业协会科学技术奖; 副主编《实验动物疫病学》和《食品药品医疗器械检验仪器设备维护保养规程》,参编《实验动物检验技术》和《实验动物质量检测》等论著3部,获发明专利2项,以第一作者发表论文30余篇

Analysis of Seven Performance Evaluation Program Results for Pathogenic Bacteria from Laboratory Animals in 2013—2020

XING Jin, FENG Yufang, WANG Hong, ZHANG Xueqing, GAO Qiang, YUE Bingfei, FU Rui   

  1. Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing 102629, China
  • Received:2021-06-04 Revised:2021-09-18 Online:2021-12-25 Published:2021-12-29

摘要: 目的 通过评估自身检测能力,促进国内实验动物能力验证活动的开展和检测水平的提高。 方法 中国食品药品检定研究院于2013—2020年共7次参加国际实验动物科学理事会(International Council for Laboratory Animal Science,ICLAS)实验动物检测能力验证活动[即诊断实验室性能评估程序(Performance Evaluation Program for Diagnostic Laboratories,PEP)(简称“国际比对”)。PEP活动中,通过培养、生化鉴定、PCR和测序等方法对PEP病原菌样品开展检测,并对国际比对结果进行总结分析。 结果 7次国际比对能力验证活动共检测40份样品,涉及27种病原菌,结果符合率分别为8/8、2/2、5/8、9/9、5/5、6/7和1/1;其中病原检测33项,抗体检测7项。国内各项标准中尚缺少辛氏鲍特菌、黏质沙雷菌、乳腺炎棒状杆菌、CAR(Cilia-associated respiratory)杆菌、小鼠放线杆菌、弗劳地枸橼酸杆菌、产酸克雷伯杆菌、无乳链球菌和致病性大肠埃希菌共9种病原菌的检测项目。 结论 通过参加国际比对活动,发现了国内外标准差异以及自身急需提升的检测能力,希望早日与国际接轨。

关键词: 实验动物, 国际比对活动, 病原体, 抗体

Abstract: Objective To promote the development of domestic laboratory animal detection proficiency testing activities and testing levels by assessing self testing capabilities. Methods The National Institutes for Food and Drug Control participated in the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) laboratory animal detection proficiency test (i.e. Performance Evaluation Program for Diagnostic Laboratories, PEP) in 2013—2020. PEP pathogenic bacteria samples were tested by culture, biochemical identification, PCR, and sequencing. Finally, the results were analyzed and summarized. Results There were 40 samples in seven international PEP activities, involving 27 kinds of pathogenic bacteria. The coincidence rates of the seven results were 8/8, 2/2, 5/8, 9/9, 5/5, 6/7, and 1/1, respectively, including 33 pathogen detection items and 7 antibody detection items. Nine pathogens were missing from the national standards: Bordetella hinzii, Serratia marcescens, Corynebacterium mastitis, CAR (Cilia-associated respiratory) bacillus, Actinobacillus muris, Citrobacter freundii, Klebsiella oxytoca, Streptococcus agalactiae, and pathogenic Escherichia coli. Conclusion Through participating in PEP, we can identify the differences between domestic and foreign standards in laboratory animal detection and the testing capabilities that we need to improve, expecting to be in line with international standards as soon as possible.

Key words: Laboratory animal, Performance evaluation program, Pathogenic bacteria, Antibody

中图分类号: