Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorK. Kremeren_US
dc.contributor.authorD. Van Soolingenen_US
dc.contributor.authorR. Frothinghamen_US
dc.contributor.authorW. H. Haasen_US
dc.contributor.authorP. W.M. Hermansen_US
dc.contributor.authorC. Martínen_US
dc.contributor.authorP. Palittapongarnpimen_US
dc.contributor.authorB. B. Plikaytisen_US
dc.contributor.authorL. W. Rileyen_US
dc.contributor.authorM. A. Yakrusen_US
dc.contributor.authorJ. M. Musseren_US
dc.contributor.authorJ. D.A. Van Embdenen_US
dc.contributor.otherNational Institute of Public Health and the Environmenten_US
dc.contributor.otherErasmus University Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Heidelbergen_US
dc.contributor.otherDurham VA Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherNational Center for Infectious Diseasesen_US
dc.contributor.otherCenters for Disease Control and Preventionen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of California, Berkeleyen_US
dc.contributor.otherBaylor College of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de Zaragozaen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Microbiology. Vol.37, No.8 (1999), 2607-2618en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this study, the currently known typing methods for Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates were evaluated with regard to reproducibility, discrimination, and specificity. Therefore, 90 M. tuberculosis complex strains, originating from 38 countries, were tested in five restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) typing methods and in seven PCR-based assays. In all methods, one or more repetitive DNA elements were targeted. The strain typing and the DNA fingerprint analysis were performed in the laboratory most experienced in the respective method. To examine intralaboratory reproducibility, blinded duplicate samples were included. The specificities of the various methods were tested by inclusion of 10 non-M, tuberculosis complex strains. All five RFLP typing methods were highly reproducible. The reliability of the PCR-based methods was highest for the mixed-linker PCR, followed by variable numbers of tandem repeat (VNTR) typing and spoligotyping. In contrast, the double repetitive element PCR (DRE-PCR), IS6110 inverse PCR, IS6110 ampliprinting, and arbitrarily primed PCR (APPCR) typing were found to be poorly reproducible. The 90 strains were best discriminated by IS6110 RFLP typing, yielding 84 different banding patterns, followed by mixed-linker PCR (81 patterns), APPCR (71 patterns), RFLP using the polymorphic GC-rich sequence as a probe (70 patterns), DRE-PCR (63 patterns), spoligotyping (61 patterns), and VNTR typing (56 patterns). We conclude that for epidemiological investigations, strain differentiation by IS6110 RFLP or mixed-linker PCR are the methods of choice. A strong association was found between the results of different genetic markers, indicating a clonal population structure of M. tuberculosis strains. Several separate genotype families within the M. tuberculosis complex could be recognized on the basis of the genetic markers used.en_US
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.titleComparison of methods based on different molecular epidemiological markers for typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains: Interlaboratory study of discriminatory power and reproducibilityen_US
Appears in Collections:Scopus 1991-2000

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.