4.7 Article

A PCR-Based Intergenic Spacer Region-Capillary Gel Electrophoresis Typing Method for Identification and Subtyping of Nocardia Species

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 11, Pages 3478-3484

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01311-12

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While 16S rRNA sequence-based identification of Nocardia species has become the gold standard, it is not without its limitations. We evaluated a novel approach encompassing the amplification of the Nocardia 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer (IGS) region followed by fragment analysis by capillary gel electrophoresis (CGE) of the amplified product for species identification of Nocardia. One hundred forty-five Nocardia isolates (19 species) and four non-Nocardia aerobic actinomycetes were studied. Reproducibility testing was performed in a subset (21%) of isolates. Ninety-five different electropherograms were identified, with heterogeneity within species being a general observation. Among common Nocardia species (e.g., Nocardia cyriacigeorgica, N. nova, N. farcinica), 2 or 3 dominant electropherogram subgroups were typical. While only a minority (8/19; 42%) of the different Nocardia species contained isolates displaying unique fragment sizes that were predictive of a particular species, virtually all isolates (142/145; 98%) could be assigned to the correct species using IGS-CGE typing based on the number and size of amplified fragments. The median number of fragments for each isolate was 2 (range, 1 to 5) with only a minority (17%) having a single fragment detected. The majority (93%) of amplified fragments were between 408 and 461 bp. The technique was also non-operator dependent, highly reproducible, and quicker and less expensive than 16S sequencing. In summary, PCR-based IGS-CGE typing is relatively simple, accurate, reproducible, and cost-effective and offers a potential alternative to 16S rRNA sequencing for identifying and subtyping Nocardia isolates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available