Kremer K, van Soolingen D, Frothingham R, Haas W H, Hermans P W, Martín C, Palittapongarnpim P, Plikaytis B B, Riley L W, Yakrus M A, Musser J M, van Embden J D
Diagnostic Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Aug;37(8):2607-18. doi: 10.1128/JCM.37.8.2607-2618.1999.
In 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.
在本研究中,对目前已知的结核分枝杆菌分离株分型方法进行了重复性、鉴别力和特异性方面的评估。因此,对来自38个国家的90株结核分枝杆菌复合群菌株进行了5种限制性片段长度多态性(RFLP)分型方法和7种基于PCR的检测。在所有方法中,一个或多个重复DNA元件作为靶点。菌株分型和DNA指纹分析在各自方法最有经验的实验室进行。为检验实验室内的重复性,纳入了盲法重复样本。通过纳入10株非结核分枝杆菌复合群菌株来检测各种方法的特异性。所有5种RFLP分型方法的重复性都很高。基于PCR的方法中,混合连接子PCR的可靠性最高,其次是可变数目串联重复序列(VNTR)分型和间隔寡核苷酸分型。相比之下,双重复元件PCR(DRE-PCR)、IS6110反向PCR、IS6110扩增指纹分析和任意引物PCR(APPCR)分型的重复性较差。90株菌株通过IS6110 RFLP分型鉴别效果最佳,产生84种不同的条带模式,其次是混合连接子PCR(81种模式)、APPCR(71种模式)、以富含GC的多态性序列为探针的RFLP(70种模式)、DRE-PCR(63种模式)、间隔寡核苷酸分型(61种模式)和VNTR分型(56种模式)。我们得出结论,对于流行病学调查,IS6110 RFLP或混合连接子PCR进行菌株鉴别是首选方法。不同遗传标记的结果之间存在很强的关联,表明结核分枝杆菌菌株具有克隆群体结构。基于所使用的遗传标记,可以识别结核分枝杆菌复合群内的几个不同基因型家族。