4.6 Article

Detection of mutations in therpoBgene of rifampicin-resistantMycobacterium tuberculosisstrains inhibiting wild type probe hybridization in the MTBDR plus assay by DNA sequencing directly from clinical specimens

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-020-01967-5

关键词

DNA sequencing; Genotype MTBDRplus; Line probe assays; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Reference standard

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi [DST/INSPIRE Fellowship/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The potential of genetic testing for rapid and accurate diagnosis of drug-resistantMycobacterium tuberculosisstrains is vital for efficient treatment and reduction in dissemination. MTBDR plus assays rapidly detect mutations related to drug resistance and wild type sequences allied with susceptibility. Although these methods are promising, the examination of molecular level performance is essential for improved assay result interpretation and continued diagnostic development. Therefore this study aimed to determine novel mutations that were inhibiting wild type probe hybridization in the Line probe assay by DNA sequencing. Using data collected from Line Probe assay (GenoType MTBDRplusassay) the contribution of absent wild type probe hybridization to the detection of rifampicin resistance was assessed via comparison to a reference standard method i.e. DNA sequencing. Results Sequence analysis of therpoBgene of 47 MTB resistant strains from clinical specimens showed that 37 had a single mutation, 9 had double mutations and one had triple mutations in theropBgene. Conclusions The absence of wild type probe hybridization without mutation probe hybridization was mainly the result of the failure of mutation probe hybridization and the result of the novel or rare mutations. Additional probes are necessary to be included in the Line probe assay to improve the detection of rifampicin-resistantMycobacterium tuberculosisstrains.

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

4.6
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