Sloos J H, Dijkshoorn L, Vogel L, van Boven C P
Departments of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jul;38(7):2488-93. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.7.2488-2493.2000.
Five typing methods, including biotyping (API ID32; BioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), quantitative antibiogram typing based on actual zone sizes, plasmid typing, randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis (with primer M13 and primer set ERIC-2-1026), and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), were compared with a previously performed method of DNA fingerprinting by AFLP (amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis) for their performance in the typing of blood isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Sixteen epidemiologically unrelated strains and 11 sets of four blood culture isolates from 11 patients with septicemia were used. The stabilities and reproducibilities of the patterns, the discriminatory capacities of the methods, and the ability to apply the methods to blood culture isolates were used as performance criteria. All strains tested were typeable by each method, and the patterns were stable and reproducible. The numbers of different types within the collection of 16 epidemiologically different isolates were 5 by biotyping, 14 by antibiogram typing, 4 by plasmid typing, 9 by the RAPD assay (combination of results with primer M13 and primer set ERIC-2-1026), and 16 by PFGE. Within the 11 sets of four blood culture isolates the types found by quantitative antibiogram typing, plasmid typing, and PFGE were unique for each set, whereas by biotyping and RAPD analysis some types were observed in more than one set. The results of biotyping did not correspond with the results of the other methods or the results of AFLP. For 6 of the 11 sets, the results of all methods except those of biotyping corresponded completely. Quantitative antibiogram typing, PFGE, and AFLP proved to be the most accurate of the six typing methods tested.
将五种分型方法,包括生物分型(API ID32;法国马赛 - 埃托伊勒生物梅里埃公司)、基于实际抑菌圈大小的定量抗菌谱分型、质粒分型、随机扩增多态性DNA(RAPD)分析(使用引物M13和ERIC - 2 - 1026引物组)以及脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE),与先前进行的扩增片段长度多态性分析(AFLP)DNA指纹图谱方法相比较,评估它们对表皮葡萄球菌血培养分离株的分型性能。使用了16株流行病学上不相关的菌株以及来自11例败血症患者的11组每组4份血培养分离株。分型模式的稳定性和可重复性、各方法的鉴别能力以及将这些方法应用于血培养分离株的能力被用作性能标准。所有测试菌株均可通过每种方法分型,且分型模式稳定且可重复。在16株流行病学不同的分离株中,生物分型得到5种不同类型,抗菌谱分型得到14种,质粒分型得到4种,RAPD分析(引物M13和ERIC - 2 - 1026引物组结果组合)得到9种,PFGE得到16种。在11组每组4份血培养分离株中,定量抗菌谱分型、质粒分型和PFGE所发现的类型每组均唯一,而生物分型和RAPD分析在多组中观察到了一些相同类型。生物分型的结果与其他方法或AFLP的结果不相符。对于11组中的6组,除生物分型外所有方法的结果完全一致。定量抗菌谱分型、PFGE和AFLP被证明是所测试的六种分型方法中最准确的。