4.3 Article

Development and Evaluation of Polymorphic Locus Sequence Typing for Epidemiological Tracking of Vibrio parahaemolyticus

期刊

FOODBORNE PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 752-760

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2019.2649

关键词

Vibrio parahaemolyticus; oyster; strain typing; molecular epidemiology; tandem repeat; foodborne

资金

  1. USDA-NIFA SBIR [12263323]
  2. USDA-ARS [CRIS 9072-42000-081-00D]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vibrio parahaemolyticus is a common inhabitant of coastal estuaries, and can accumulate to high levels in the shellfish that populate those waters. Human gastrointestinal infection occasionally follows ingestion of raw oysters, and it can lead to extended closures of implicated oyster beds with serious economic consequences. To track down the source of human infection, and to monitor strain variation in the environment, a user-friendly and affordable typing method that provides sufficient resolution for epidemiological analysis is needed. Polymorphic locus sequence typing (PLST) is based on conventional PCR and dideoxynucleotide sequencing of the one or two most phylogenetically informative genomic loci. Bioinformatic analyses of GenBank databases identified the V. parahaemolyticus polymorphic tandem repeat-containing loci VpMT1 and VpMT2 on chromosomes 1 and 2, respectively, as promising PLST targets, yielding diversity indexes of 0.99. Phylogenetic analysis identified multiple clusters representing strains known or likely to be epidemiologically related. Correlations with serotype and multilocus sequence type were strong but resolution was higher; for example, North American ST36 strains yielded 16 VpMT1 alleles. In the laboratory, VpMT1 and VpMT2 were robust, resolving 16 of 17 strains following PCR and sequencing directly from heat-killed colonies. Finally, 4 of 13 retail oyster enrichments yielded VpMT sequences that were unique but closely related to previously characterized clinical or environmental V. parahaemolyticus isolates.

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