Back

A Simple, Low-Cost, and Efficient Protocol for Rapid Isolation of Pathogenic Bacteria from Human Blood

Coskun, F. S.; Quick, J.; Toprak, E.

2025-01-16 microbiology
10.1101/2025.01.14.633023 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Bacteremia is a serious clinical condition in which pathogenic bacteria enter the bloodstream, putting patients at risk of septic shock and necessitating antibiotic treatment. Choosing the most effective antibiotic is crucial not only for resolving the infection but also for minimizing side effects, such as dysbiosis in the healthy microbiome and reducing the selection pressure for antibiotic resistance. This requires prompt identification of the pathogen and antibiotic susceptibility testing, yet these processes are inherently slow in standard clinical microbiology labs due to reliance on growth-based assays. Although alternative methods exist, they are rarely adopted in clinical settings because they involve complex protocols and high costs for training and infrastructure. Here, we present an optimized, simple protocol for rapidly and efficiently isolating bacterial pathogens from blood without altering typical laboratory workflows. Our method is cost-effective and compatible with commonly available laboratory instruments, offering the advantage of isolating bacterial cells directly, which bypasses the delays associated with traditional blood culture methods and enables faster diagnostic results. The protocol achieved over 70% efficiency within 30 minutes, remained effective at low bacterial concentrations (1-10 bacteria/0.3 mL blood), and preserved bacterial viability with no notable change in growth lag times. We validated the protocol on several clinically relevant bacterial strains, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. These findings highlight our protocols potential utility in clinical and research settings, facilitating timely cultures and minimizing diagnostic delays.

Published in Frontiers in Microbiology (predicted rank #7) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.