4.6 Article

First multi-locus sequence typing scheme for Arcobacter spp.

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-196

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Arcobacter spp. are a common contaminant of food and water, and some species, primarily A. butzleri and A. cryaerophilus, have been isolated increasingly from human diarrheal stool samples. Here, we describe the first Arcobacter multilocus sequence typing (MLST) method for A. butzleri, A. cryaerophilus, A. skirrowii, A. cibarius and A. thereius. Results: A sample set of 374 arcobacters, including 275 A. butzleri, 72 A. cryaerophilus, 15 A. skirrowii and 8 A. cibarius isolates from a wide variety of geographic locations and sources, was typed in this study. Additionally, this sample set contained four strains representing a new Arcobacter species, A. thereius. The seven loci used in the four-species Arcobacter MLST method are the same as those employed previously in C. jejuni, C. coli, C. helveticus and C. fetus (i.e. aspA, atpA(uncA), glnA, gltA, glyA, pgm and tkt). A large number of alleles were identified at each locus with the majority of isolates containing a unique sequence type. All Arcobacter isolates typed in this study contain two glyA genes, one linked to lysS (glyA1) and the other linked to ada (glyA2). glyA1 was incorporated into the Arcobacter MLST method while glyA2 was not because it did not increase substantially the level of discrimination. Conclusion: No association of MLST alleles or sequence types with host or geographical source was observed with this sample set. Nevertheless, the large number of identified alleles and sequence types indicate that this MLST method will prove useful in both Arcobacter strain discrimination and in epidemiological studies of sporadic Arcobacter-related gastroenteritis. A new Arcobacter MLST database was created http://pubmlst.org/arcobacter/; allele and ST data generated in this study were deposited in this database and are available online.

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