4.7 Article

Comparison of five repetitive-sequence-based PCR typing methods for molecular discrimination of Salmonella enterica isolates

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 3615-3623

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.43.8.3615-3623.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Five repetitive-element PCR (rep-PCR) techniques [primer sets ERIC1R-ERIC2 and REP1R-REP2I and primers ERIC2, BOXA1R, and (GTG)(5)] were evaluated for the discrimination of Salmonella enterica isolates at the serotype level. On the basis of number, even distribution over the whole fingerprint, and clarity of bands in the fingerprints, the enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC) primer set and the (GTG)(5) primer were chosen for use in the following experiments. For these two primer sets, reproducibility was tested on different lysates of five selected serotypes of Salmonella in the same PCR by using three different PCR runs. Reproducibility was poor between different PCR runs but high within the same PCR run. Furthermore, 80 different serotypes and five isolates which were not typeable by serotyping were fingerprinted. All strains were typeable by the ERIC primer set and the (GTG)(5) primer and generated unique fingerprints, except for some strains with incomplete antigenic codes. Finally, 55 genetically different strains belonging to 10 serotypes were fingerprinted to examine the genetic diversity of the rep-PCR within serotypes. This experiment showed that one serotype did not always correlate to only one ERIC or (GTG)(5) fingerprint but that the fingerprint heterogeneity within a serotype was limited. In epidemiological studies, ERIC- and/or (GTG)(5)-PCR can be used to limit the number of strains that have to be serotyped. The reproducibility of isolates in one PCR run, the discriminatory power, and the genetic diversity (stability) of the fingerprint were similar for the Eric primer set and the (GTG)(5) primer, so both are equally able to discriminate Salmonella serotypes.

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