4.5 Article

Genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii by multilocus PCR-RFLP markers:: A high resolution and simple method for identification of parasites

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 841-848

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2006.03.003

关键词

Toxoplasma gondii; PCR-RFLP; multilocus genotyping; genetic diversity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It was generally believed that Toxoplasma gondii had a clonal population structure with three predominant lineages. namely types I, II and III. This was largely based on genotyping of more than 100 T gondii isolates originating from a variety of human and animal sources in North America and Europe. Recent genotyping studies on T gondii strains from wild animals or human patients from different geographical regions revealed the high frequency of non-archetypal genotypes, suggesting the overall diversity of the T gondii population might be much higher than we thought. However, as most genotyping studies had relied on a few biallelic markers, the resolution and discrimnative power of identifying parasite isolates were quite low. To date, there is no commonly used set of markers to genotype T gondii strains and it is not feasible to compare results from different laboratories. Here, we developed nine PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism markers with each of them capable of distinguishing the three archetypal T gondii alleles in one restriction-enzyme reaction by agarose gel electrophoresis. Genotyping 46 T gondii isolates from different sources using these markers showed that they could readily distinguish the archetypal from atypical types and reveal the genetic diversity of the parasites. In addition, mixed strains in samples could be easily detected by these markers. Use of these markers will facilitate the identification of T gondii isolates in epidentiological and population genetic studies. (c) 2006 Australian Society for Parasitology Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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