Weigel Ronald M, Qiao Baozhen, Teferedegne Belete, Suh Dong Kyun, Barber David A, Isaacson Richard E, White Bryan A
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802, USA.
Vet Microbiol. 2004 Jun 3;100(3-4):205-17. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.02.009.
Pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) using restriction enzymes AvrII, SpeI, and XbaI, and repetitive sequence polymerase chain reaction (Rep-PCR) using BOX, ERIC, and REP primers, were compared with respect to their ability to detect genetic differences among 68 Salmonella isolates from nine Illinois swine farms. Both genotyping methods had high reproducibility of fragment numbers (reliability>0.9) and sizes (reliability>0.85), and sizes [Formula: see text], and produced approximately the same number of DNA fragments, but Rep-PCR fragment profiles had considerably greater variation. Genetic distances between isolates were calculated from fragment size matching. There was good agreement between the genetic distance matrices for the composite (3-enzyme and 3-primer) methods (Mantel's r=0.83). PFGE detected slightly greater variation in genetic distances among isolates, but failed to differentiate seven pairs of isolates, three of which were sampled at least 1 month apart and therefore unlikely to be truly identical genetically. In contrast, Rep-PCR identified no isolates as genetically identical. In cluster analyses based on genetic distances, there were moderate differences between PFGE and Rep-PCR (about 2/3 agreement in tight cluster membership). Both PFGE and Rep-PCR were able to differentiate isolates of the same serotype. However, some serotypes (Agona, Anatum, Derby, Infantis, Worthington) were distributed across clusters. There was less agreement between individual primer/enzyme and composite results for Rep-PCR than for PFGE. This greater independence of results for individual primers for Rep-PCR accounted in part for the greater discriminative ability of the composite method. Both composite methods indicated that most Salmonella transmission occurred within a farm and that there was no preference for transmission between specific ecological compartments. Given the equally high reliability of both genotyping methods, the greater discriminative ability of Rep-PCR recommends it as the preferred method for precise detection of transmission links.
使用限制性内切酶AvrII、SpeI和XbaI的脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE),以及使用BOX、ERIC和REP引物的重复序列聚合酶链反应(Rep-PCR),就其检测来自伊利诺伊州9个养猪场的68株沙门氏菌分离株之间遗传差异的能力进行了比较。两种基因分型方法在片段数量(可靠性>0.9)和大小(可靠性>0.85)以及大小[公式:见正文]方面都具有很高的重现性,并且产生的DNA片段数量大致相同,但Rep-PCR片段图谱的变异程度要大得多。根据片段大小匹配计算分离株之间的遗传距离。两种复合方法(3种酶和3种引物)的遗传距离矩阵之间具有良好的一致性(Mantel氏r = 0.83)。PFGE检测到分离株之间的遗传距离变异略大,但未能区分7对分离株,其中3对分离株的采样间隔至少为1个月,因此不太可能在遗传上真正相同。相比之下,Rep-PCR未将任何分离株鉴定为遗传上相同。在基于遗传距离的聚类分析中,PFGE和Rep-PCR之间存在中等差异(紧密聚类成员中的一致性约为2/3)。PFGE和Rep-PCR都能够区分相同血清型的分离株。然而,一些血清型(阿哥纳、阿纳托姆、德比、婴儿、沃辛顿)分布在不同的聚类中。Rep-PCR中单个引物/酶与复合结果之间的一致性低于PFGE。Rep-PCR单个引物结果的这种更大独立性部分解释了复合方法具有更大的鉴别能力。两种复合方法均表明,大多数沙门氏菌传播发生在一个农场内,并且在特定生态区室之间的传播没有偏好。鉴于两种基因分型方法的可靠性同样高,Rep-PCR更大的鉴别能力使其成为精确检测传播联系的首选方法。