4.7 Article

Genotyping of Madurella mycetomatis by selective amplification of restriction fragments (amplified fragment length polymorphism) and subtype correlation with geographical origin and lesion size

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 9, Pages 4349-4356

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.9.4349-4356.2005

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the causative organisms of mycetoma is the fungus Madurella mycetomatis. Previously, extensive molecular typing studies identified Sudanese isolates of this fungus as clonal, but polymorphic genetic markers have not yet been identified. Here, we report on the selective amplification of restriction fragment (AFLP) analysis of 37 Sudanese clinical isolates of M. mycetomatis. Of 93 AFLP fragments generated, 25 were polymorphic, and 12 of these 25 polymorphic fragments were found in a large fraction of the strains. Comparative analysis resulted into a tree, composed of two main (clusters I and 11) and one minor cluster (cluster 111). Seventy-five percent of the strains found in cluster I originated from central Sudan, while the origin of the strains in cluster 11 was more heterogeneous. Furthermore, the strains found in cluster I were generally obtained from lesions larger than those from which the strains found in cluster 11 were obtained (chi-square test for trend, P = 0.03). Among the 12 more commonly found polymorphisms, 4 showed sequence homology with known genes. Marker A7 was homologous to an endo-1,4-beta-glucanase from Aspergillus oryzae, 97% identical markers A12 and B3 matched a hypothetical protein from Gibberella zeae, and marker B4 was homologous to casein kinase I from Danio rerio. The last marker seemed to be associated with strains originating from central Sudan (P = 0.001). This is the first report on a genotypic study where genetic markers which may be used to study pathogenicity in M. mycetomatis were obtained.

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