4.7 Article

DNA microarray-based genotyping of Chlamydophila psittaci strains from culture and clinical samples

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 135, 期 1-2, 页码 22-30

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.09.041

关键词

Chlamydophila psittaci; ompA gene; Serotyping; Genotyping; Diagnostic DNA microarray test; Testing of clinical samples

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The avian and human pathogen Chlamydophila (C) psittaci represents a genetically heterogeneous species. To facilitate epidemiological surveys, more rapid yet highly specific molecular tests are needed. Currently used typing methods, i.e. serotyping and PCR-RFLP, have only limited sensitivity and are incapable of covering the wide spectrum of naturally occurring types of C psittaci strains. In the present study, a new DNA microarray assay based on the ArrayTube(R) (AT) technology was used to genotype C. psittaci in 98 isolates and 23 clinical tissue samples. The present array carries 35 oligonucleotide probes derived from variable domains 2 and 4 of the ompA gene. The assay proved highly sensitive, allowing correct genotyping of DNA from 2 inclusion-forming units. The results of DNA microarray genotyping of cultured strains proved highly concordant with the data from PCR-RFLP typing and serotyping. Sequencing of the ompA gene served as the reference test to verify the accuracy of AT genotyping results. In 15 instances (15.3%), strains were successfully typed by the AT assay, while serotyping and/or PCR-RFLP genotyping failed to produce unambiguous results. Eleven of these samples were ompA sequenced to confirm the AT findings. In addition to the currently accepted nine ompA genotypes, the microarray test was shown to recognise new provisional genotypes, such as Mat116 and YP84. In conclusion, the new AT assay proved to be suitable for rapid, sensitive and reproducible genotyping of C psittaci strains and can be recommended for routine diagnosis. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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