4.7 Article

Identification and differentiation of canine Mycoplasma isolates by 16S-23S rDNA PCR-RFLP

Journal

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 125, Issue 1-2, Pages 170-174

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.04.045

Keywords

canine mycoplasmas; molecular identification; 16S-23S rDNA PCR-RFLP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional serological methods for the identification of canine mycoplasma isolates depend on the availability of a panel of species- specific diagnostic antisera and are not always reliable in terms of specificity. To enable simultaneous identification of field isolates, PCR-RFLP analysis of the 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region was used to characterize the type strains of the 12 currently described canine mycoplasmas of the Genus Mycoplasma which represent the classic non-hemotropic species. The use of 16S-23S rDNA PCR in the first step of this analysis revealed specific size differences of amplicons which allowed to classify these 12 canine Mycoplasma species into three groups. Depending on the length of the amplicon, subsequent RFLP analysis of PCR products using two restriction endonucleases in a single digest (Apol/Ddel or Taql/VspI) generated unique banding patterns. For further evaluation of the 16S-23S rDNA PCR-RFLP assay system as identification and differentiation tool, a total of 262 field isolates collected from the canine genital tract were tested. PCR-RFLP results for 251 field isolates correlated with traditional serological test results. The remaining I I isolates had an RFLP pattern distinct from the type strains included in this study and were identified by 16S rDNA sequencing as closely related to M. sp. HRC689. The PCR-RFLP assay established in this study enabled a rapid, accurate and easily performed identification and differentiation of all 12 currently described nonhemotropic canine Mycoplasma species. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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