4.7 Article

Genomic analysis distinguishes Mycobacterium africanum

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 3594-3599

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.42.8.3594-3599.2004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycobacterium africanum is thought to comprise a unique species within the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. M. africanum has traditionally been identified by phenotypic criteria, occupying an intermediate position between M. tuberculosis and M. bovis according to biochemical characteristics. Although M. africanum isolates present near-identical sequence homology to other species of the M. tuberculosis complex, several studies have uncovered large genomic regions variably deleted from certain M. africanum isolates. To further investigate the genomic characteristics of organisms characterized as M. africamun, the DNA content of 12 isolates was interrogated by using Affymetrix GeneChip. Analysis revealed genomic regions of M. tuberculosis deleted from all isolates of putative diagnostic and biological consequence. The distribution of deleted sequences suggests that M. africanum subtype 11 isolates are situated among strains of modern M. tuberculosis. In contrast, other M. africanum isolates (subtype 1) constitute two distinct evolutionary branches within the M. tuberculosis complex. To test for an association between deleted sequences and biochemical attributes used for speciation, a phenotypically diverse panel of M. africanum-like isolates from Guinea-Bissau was tested for these deletions. These isolates clustered together within one of the M. africanum subtype I branches, irrespective of phenotype. These results indicate that convergent biochemical profiles can be independently obtained for M. tuberculosis complex members, challenging the traditional approach to M. tuberculosis complex speciation. Furthermore, the genomic results suggest a rational framework for defining M. africanum and provide tools to accurately assess its prevalence in clinical specimens.

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