4.3 Article

Interlaboratory reproducibility of DiversiLab rep-PCR typing and clustering of Acinetobacter baumannii isolates

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 137-141

出版社

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.036046-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Germany, Klinische Forschergruppe Infektiologie [01KI0771]
  2. Veterans Affairs Merit Review Program
  3. National Institutes of Health [AI072219-05, AI063517-07]
  4. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center [VISN 10]
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI063517, R01AI072219] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have investigated the reproducibility of DiversiLab rep-PCR fingerprints between two laboratories with the aim of determining if the fingerprints and clustering are laboratory-specific or portable. One-hundred non-duplicate Acinetobacter baumannii isolates were used in this study. DNA isolation and rep-PCR were each performed separately in two laboratories and rep-PCR patterns generated in laboratory A were compared with those from laboratory B. Twelve A. baumannii isolates processed in laboratory A showed >= 98% pattern similarity with the corresponding 12 isolates tested in laboratory B and were considered identical. Sixty-four isolates showed 95-97.9% similarity with their corresponding isolates. Twenty-three isolates showed 90-94% similarity with the corresponding isolates, while one isolate showed only 87.4% similarity. However, intra-laboratory clustering was conserved: isolates that clustered in laboratory A also clustered in laboratory B. While clustering was conserved and reproducible at two different laboratories, demonstrating the robustness of rep-PCR, interlaboratory comparison of individual isolate fingerprints showed more variability. This comparison allows conclusions regarding clonality to be reached independent of the laboratory where the analysis is performed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据