4.7 Article

Use of O-antigen gene cluster-specific PCRs for the identification and O-genotyping of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Yersinia pestis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 11, Pages 5103-5112

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.11.5103-5112.2003

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Yersinia pestis is a very recently evolved clone of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis serotype O:1b. This close relationship causes potential difficulties in DNA-based diagnostic methods. Analysis of the O-antigen gene clusters in these two organisms identified two regions that were used to specifically identify Y. pestis-Y. pseudotuberculosis as a group or Y. pestis alone. Both PCR assays were found to be 100% specific when tested on a large collection of Yersinia species and other Enterobacteriaceae. Furthermore, advantage was taken of the different setups of the O-antigen gene clusters of the 21 known Y. pseudotuberculosis serotypes to develop a multiplex PCR assay to replace the conventional serotyping method of Y. pseudotuberculosis by O-genotyping. The multiplex PCR assay contained nine sets of specific PCRs in a single tube and when used on Y. pseudotuberculosis reference strains allowed the distinction of 14 individual serotypes and two duplex serotypes (0:4a-0:8 and 0:12-0:13). Serotype 0:7, 0:9, and 0:10 strains required additional PCRs for O-genotyping. Once applied to Y. pseudotuberculosis strains of various origins, a very good correlation between classical serotypes and O-genotypes was observed, although some discrepancies were found. O-genotyping also proved useful to correct misidentification of some strains and to type Y. pseudotuberculosis isolates that had lost the, expression of the O-antigen. The PCR-based O-genotyping can easily be applied in conventional laboratories, without the need for tedious preparation of a large set of specific antisera.

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