4.7 Article

Comparison of Microsatellite length polymorphism and multilocus sequence typing for DNA-based typing of Candida albicans

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 3958-3963

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01261-07

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For genotyping Candida albicans isolates, two PCR-based methods have recently emerged: multilocus sequence typing (MLST), based on the sequence of selected genes, and microsatellite length polymorphism (MLP), based on the length of PCR products containing variable numbers of short DNA repeats. To compare the two methods in their abilities to differentiate and group C. albicans isolates, we selected 50 independent isolates collected at the National Reference Center for Mycoses and Antifungals. MLST typing was performed using sequencing of seven loci as described at http://test1.mlst.net. The MLP method consisted of a single multiplex PCR testing three different loci. Dendrograms were constructed by the unweighted pair group cluster method with Euclidean metric for both methods. The correlation between the distance matrices was performed with a Mantel test tested with 1,000 random permutations. The sensitivity and specificity of the MLP typing system were determined after allocating MLST groups for the greater number of isolates of each distinct MLP group. The discriminatory power index was >0.99, and the distances between the isolates were highly correlated with both systems. The Mantel coefficient and the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient were 35,699 and 0.32, respectively (P <= 1.2 x 10(-6)). Using MLP, the average specificity and sensitivity of clustering compared to MLST were 83% and 73%, respectively, when the singletons were excluded. The two methods are similarly discriminatory and can be interchangeable depending on the objectives. MLP is less expensive and faster than MLST. However, MLST is currently more accurate and additional standardization is needed for MLP.

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