4.7 Article

Comparative evaluation of three commercial software packages for analysis of DNA polymorphism patterns

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages 331-336

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2001.00246.x

Keywords

DNA patterns; computerized analysis; GelCompar; molecular analyst; BioImage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective In the present study we have compared three commercial software packages, GelCompar, Molecular Analyst Fingerprinting, and BioImage, to determine if the results generated by the programs were comparable and correlated adequately with visual interpretation of electrophoretic gels, in the analysis of several well characterized incidents of infections. Methods Infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida dubliniensis, C. albicans, and serotypes of Salmonella were characterized by restriction endonuclease analysis, macrorestriction analysis of genomic DNA with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and random amplified polymorphic DNA. The genotypes were visually detected based on band presence or absence in the different gels. The similarity values of DNA profiles were computed using Dice coefficient and were presented in dendrograms by upgma. The concordance or agreement between the number of genotypes obtained and their clustering, using the computerized programs, was determined. Results In general, agreement in number of genotypes obtained visually and by using the commercial DNA analysis software was achieved, but discrepancies were also denoted between the systems. The concordance between the visual and the computerized analysis ranged from 72% to 100%. Conclusion In our experience, although the programs evaluated in the present study performed acceptably well, such programs may be used as an aid in the analysis of complex banding patterns, and they do not provide an indisputably correct analysis in genotype definition.

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