4.4 Article

Development and Evaluation of a Multiplex Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Procedure to Clinically Type Prevalent Salmonella enterica Serovars

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 220-225

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090036

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institut Colombiano pare el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la Tecnologia, Francisco Jose de Caldas, Colciencias [3256-04-18105]
  2. Institut Nacional de Salud, Colombia
  3. Instituto Colombiano de Medicina Tropical-Universidad CES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction procedure was developed to identify the most prevalent clinical isolates of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica. Genes from the rib, fliC, fljB, and viaB groups that encode the 0, H, and Vi antigens were used to design 15 primer pairs and TaqMan probes specific for the genes rfbJ, wzx, fliC, fljB, wcdB, the sdf-I sequence, and invA, which was used as an internal amplification control. The primers and probes were variously combined into six sets. The first round of reactions used two of these sets to detect Salmonella 0:4, 0:9, 0:7, 0:8, and 0:3,10 serogroups. Once the serogroups were identified, the results of a second round of reactions that used primers and probes for the flagellar antigen 1 genes, 1,2; e,h; g,m; d; e,n,x; and z(10), and the Vi gene were used to identify individual serovars. The procedure was standardized using 18 Salmonella reference strains and other enterobacteria. The procedure's reliability and sensitivity was evaluated using 267 randomly chosen serotyped Salmonella clinical isolates. The procedure had a sensitivity of 95.5% and was 100% specific. Thus, our technique is a quick, sensitive, reliable, and specific means of identifying S. enterica serovars and can be used in conjunction with traditional serotyping. Other primer and probe combinations could be used to increase the number of identifiable serovars. (J Mol Diagn 2010, 12:220-225: DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090036)

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

4.4
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