Casarez E A, Pillai S D, Mott J B, Vargas M, Dean K E, Di Giovanni G D
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Center, El Paso, TX 79927, USA.
J Appl Microbiol. 2007 Aug;103(2):350-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03246.x.
Four bacterial source tracking (BST) methods, enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus sequence polymerase chain reaction (ERIC-PCR), automated ribotyping using HindIII, Kirby-Bauer antibiotic resistance analysis (KB-ARA) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) were directly compared using the same collection of Escherichia coli isolates. The data sets from each BST method and from composite methods were compared for library accuracy and their ability to identify water isolates.
Potential sources of faecal pollution were identified by watershed sanitary surveys. Domestic sewage and faecal samples from pets, cattle, avian livestock, other nonavian livestock, avian wildlife and nonavian wildlife sources were collected for isolation of E. coli. A total of 2275 E. coli isolates from 813 source samples were screened using ERIC-PCR to exclude clones and to maximize library diversity, resulting in 883 isolates from 745 samples selected for the library. The selected isolates were further analysed using automated ribotyping with HindIII, KB-ARA and PFGE. A total of 555 E. coli isolates obtained from 412 water samples were analysed by the four BST methods. A composite data set of the four BST methods gave the highest rates of correct classification (RCCs) with the fewest unidentified isolates than any single method alone. RCCs for the four-method composite data set and a seven-way split of source classes ranged from 22% for avian livestock to 83% for domestic sewage. Two-method composite data sets were also found to be better than individual methods, having RCCs similar to the four-method composite and identification of the same major sources of faecal pollution.
The use of BST composite data sets may be more beneficial than the use of single methods.
This is one of the first comprehensive comparisons using composite data from several BST methods. While the four-method approach provided the most desirable BST results, the use of two-method composite data sets may yield comparable BST results while providing for cost, labour and time savings.
使用同一组大肠杆菌分离株,直接比较四种细菌源追踪(BST)方法,即肠杆菌基因间重复一致序列聚合酶链反应(ERIC-PCR)、使用HindIII的自动核糖体分型、 Kirby-Bauer抗生素抗性分析(KB-ARA)和脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE)。比较每种BST方法以及复合方法的数据集在文库准确性和识别水体分离株方面的能力。
通过流域卫生调查确定粪便污染的潜在来源。收集来自宠物、牛、禽畜、其他非禽畜、禽野生动物和非禽野生动物源的生活污水和粪便样本,用于分离大肠杆菌。使用ERIC-PCR对来自813个源样本的总共2275株大肠杆菌分离株进行筛选,以排除克隆并最大化文库多样性,最终从745个样本中选出883株分离株用于构建文库。对所选分离株进一步使用HindIII自动核糖体分型、KB-ARA和PFGE进行分析。使用这四种BST方法对从412个水样中获得的总共555株大肠杆菌分离株进行分析。四种BST方法的复合数据集给出了最高的正确分类率(RCC),与单独使用任何一种方法相比,未识别的分离株数量最少。四种方法的复合数据集和七分类源类别的RCC范围从禽畜的22%到家畜污水的83%。还发现两种方法的复合数据集比单独的方法更好,其RCC与四种方法的复合数据集相似,并且能够识别相同的主要粪便污染源。
使用BST复合数据集可能比使用单一方法更有益。
这是首批使用几种BST方法的复合数据进行全面比较的研究之一。虽然四种方法的途径提供了最理想的BST结果,但使用两种方法的复合数据集可能产生可比的BST结果,同时节省成本、劳动力和时间。