4.6 Article

Novel Virulence Gene and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR) Multilocus Sequence Typing Scheme for Subtyping of the Major Serovars of Salmonella enterica subsp enterica

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 1946-1956

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02625-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture [2009-34163-20132]
  2. NIFA [581597, 2009-34163-20132] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica is the leading cause of bacterial food-borne disease in the United States. Molecular subtyping methods are powerful tools for tracking the farm-to-fork spread of food-borne pathogens during outbreaks. In order to develop a novel multilocus sequence typing (MLST) scheme for subtyping the major serovars of S. enterica subsp. enterica, the virulence genes sseL and fimH and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) loci were sequenced from 171 clinical isolates from nine Salmonella serovars, Salmonella serovars Typhimurium, Enteritidis, Newport, Heidelberg, Javiana, I 4,[5],12: i:-, Montevideo, Muenchen, and Saintpaul. The MLST scheme using only virulence genes was congruent with serotyping and identified epidemic clones but could not differentiate outbreaks. The addition of CRISPR sequences dramatically improved discriminatory power by differentiating individual outbreak strains/clones. Of particular note, the present MLST scheme provided better discrimination of Salmonella serovar Enteritidis strains than pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). This method showed high epidemiologic concordance for all serovars screened except for Salmonella serovar Muenchen. In conclusion, the novel MLST scheme described in the present study accurately differentiated outbreak strains/clones of the major serovars of Salmonella, and therefore, it shows promise for subtyping this important food-borne pathogen during investigations of outbreaks.

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