Price Connie S, Huynh Holly, Paule Suzanne, Hollis Richard J, Noskin Gary A, Pfaller Michael A, Peterson Lance R
Department of Pathology, Northwestern University and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 May;40(5):1858-61. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002.
The RiboPrinter Microbial Characterization System was compared with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), restriction endonuclease analysis (REA), and epidemiological data for typing 45 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) isolates. In 21 clinically related isolates, 90 to 100% were similar by PFGE and REA, but only 57% were similar by the RiboPrinter. In another eight clinically related isolates, three isolates similar by PFGE and REA were all unique by the RiboPrinter. In contrast, in 16 clinically unrelated isolates, the predominant RiboPrinter ribotype represented 50% of the strains, while the largest PFGE and REA clones represented less than 19% of the strains. These data suggest that the RiboPrinter is not reliable for VRE investigation.
将RiboPrinter微生物鉴定系统与脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE)、限制性内切酶分析(REA)以及45株耐万古霉素屎肠球菌(VRE)分离株的分型流行病学数据进行了比较。在21株临床相关分离株中,PFGE和REA显示90%至100%的菌株相似,但RiboPrinter仅显示57%的菌株相似。在另外8株临床相关分离株中,PFGE和REA显示相似的3株分离株,RiboPrinter鉴定结果均为独特型。相反,在16株临床不相关分离株中,RiboPrinter主要核糖体分型代表了50%的菌株,而最大的PFGE和REA克隆仅代表不到19%的菌株。这些数据表明,RiboPrinter在VRE调查中不可靠。