首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Comparative Assessment of Genotyping Methods for Epidemiologic Study of Burkholderia cepacia Genomovar III
【2h】

Comparative Assessment of Genotyping Methods for Epidemiologic Study of Burkholderia cepacia Genomovar III

机译:基因型分型方法对洋葱伯克霍尔德氏菌Genomovar III流行病学研究的比较评估

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

We analyzed a collection of 97 well-characterized Burkholderia cepacia genomovar III isolates to evaluate multiple genomic typing systems, including pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), BOX-PCR fingerprinting and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) typing. The typeability, reproducibility, and discriminatory power of these techniques were evaluated, and the results were compared to each other and to data obtained in previous studies by using multilocus restriction typing (MLRT). All methods showed excellent typeability. PFGE with SpeI was more reproducible than RAPD and BOX-PCR fingerprinting. The discriminatory power of the methods was variable, with PFGE and RAPD typing having a higher index of discrimination than BOX-PCR fingerprinting. In general, the results obtained by PFGE, BOX-PCR fingerprinting, and MLRT were in good agreement. Our data indicate that different genomic-based methods can be used to type B. cepacia genomovar III isolates depending on the situation and the epidemiologic question being addressed. PFGE and RAPD fingerprinting are best suited to addressing small-scale studies (i.e., local epidemiology), whereas BOX-PCR fingerprinting is more appropriate for large-scale studies (i.e., global epidemiology). In this regard, BOX-PCR fingerprinting can be considered a rapid and easy alternative to MLRT.
机译:我们分析了97个特征明确的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌genomovar III分离株的集合,以评估多个基因组分型系统,包括脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE),BOX-PCR指纹图谱和随机扩增多态性DNA(RAPD)分型。评估了这些技术的可打字性,可再现性和区分能力,并将结果相互比较,并与使用多基因座限制分型(MLRT)的先前研究获得的数据进行了比较。所有方法均显示出出色的可打字性。带有SpeI的PFGE比RAPD和BOX-PCR指纹图谱具有更高的重现性。该方法的辨别力是可变的,PFGE和RAPD分型具有比BOX-PCR指纹更高的辨别指数。通常,通过PFGE,BOX-PCR指纹图谱和MLRT获得的结果非常吻合。我们的数据表明,根据情况和要解决的流行病学问题,可以使用不同的基于基因组的方法来分离B. cepacia genomovar III型。 PFGE和RAPD指纹图谱最适合用于小规模研究(即本地流行病学),而BOX-PCR指纹图谱更适合于大规模研究(即全球流行病学)。在这方面,可以认为BOX-PCR指纹图谱是MLRT的一种快速简便的替代方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号