Comparison of restriction endonuclease analysis, ribotyping, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for molecular differentiation of Clostridium difficile strains

限制性内切酶分析、核糖体分型和脉冲场凝胶电泳在艰难梭菌菌株分子鉴别中的比较

阅读:2

Abstract

A combined clinical and molecular epidemiologic analysis of 46 strains of Clostridium difficile, including 16 nosocomial isolates from one ward (outbreak ward) plus 17 other nosocomial isolates and 13 community-acquired isolates, was performed. HindIII digests of total cellular DNA were analyzed by restriction enzyme analysis (REA) and ribotyping; SmaI digests were analyzed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Isolates were assigned to typing groups on the basis of the profiles detected; isolates with closely related profiles were assigned to subgroups. The 16 isolates from the outbreak ward were resolved by both REA and PFGE into five distinct groups; 13 isolates represented two REA groups and three PFGE groups and two isolates were resolved as distinct groups by both techniques. DNA obtained from one isolate was persistently partially degraded, precluding analysis by PFGE. Seventeen sporadic nosocomial isolates were resolved by REA and PFGE into comparable numbers of groups (i.e., nine groups) and subgroups (i.e., 15 and 14 subgroups, respectively), with two isolates not evaluable by PFGE. The 13 epidemiologically unrelated community-acquired isolates were assigned to 11 groups by REA and to 12 groups by PFGE. Overall, ribotyping identified only nine groups among the 46 isolates. We conclude that REA and PFGE have comparable discriminatory powers for epidemiologic typing of C. difficile isolates and that ribotyping is appreciably less discriminatory. For a few isolates, partial DNA degradation prevented analysis by PFGE but not by REA or ribotyping; the cause of the degradation is unknown.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。