4.1 Article

Identification of six Trypanosoma cruzi lineages by sequence-characterised amplified region markers

期刊

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 111, 期 1, 页码 95-105

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(00)00302-9

关键词

Trypanosoma cruzi; genetic characterisation; sequence-characterised amplified regions (SCAR); parasite identification; Chagas' disease epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Six discrete phylogenetic lineages were recently identified in Trypanosoma cruzi, on the basis of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) characterisation. The objective of the present study was to develop specific PCR-based markers for the identification of each of the six lineages. Eighty-seven T. cruzi stocks representative of all the lineages were characterised by RAPD with three primers, resulting in the identification of three fragments that were specifically amplified in the given sets of lineages. After cloning and sequencing these fragments, three pairs of sequence-characterised amplified region (SCAR) primers were designed. After PCR amplification using the SCAR primers, the initial polymorphism was retained either as the presence or absence of amplification, or as size variation between the PCR products. Although most PCR products, taken individually, were distributed across several lineages, the combination of the three SCAR markers resulted in characteristic patterns that were distinct in the six lineages. Furthermore, T. cruzi lineages were distinguished from Trypanosoma rangeli, T. cruzi marinkellei and T. cruzi-like organisms. The excellent correspondence of these new PCR markers with the phylogenetic lineages, allied with their sensitivity, makes them reliable tools for lineage identification and strain characterisation in T. cruzi. The approach described here could be generalised to any species of microorganism harbouring clear-cut phylogenetic subdivisions. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. Al 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

4.1
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