Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Gene. 2012 Nov 1;509(1):142-8. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2012.07.073. Epub 2012 Aug 8.
The detection and identification of bio-threat agents and the study of host-pathogen interactions require a high-resolution detection platform capable of discerning closely related species. Diverse analysis methods are used to identify pathogens, specifically Brucella species or biovars. In this study, we compared four diagnostic approaches including serology-based biochemical test, PCR assay, microarray analysis using a Universal Bio-signature Detection Array (UBDA) and whole genome "deep" sequencing for Brucella organisms including a number of field isolates. We found that although there was frequent agreement among the different tests, some tests gave compound/contradictory results that were a consequence of species diversity due to mixed infections or minor contaminants as measured by UBDA and validated from whole genome sequence. By comparing these analysis techniques, we demonstrate that standard diagnostics used in the field are limited in their ability to identify genomic DNA contaminants in field isolates while UBDA and sequencing analysis are highly sensitive in tracing genomic differences among the isolates.
生物威胁因子的检测和鉴定以及宿主-病原体相互作用的研究需要一个能够辨别密切相关物种的高分辨率检测平台。多种分析方法被用于鉴定病原体,特别是布鲁氏菌属或生物型。在这项研究中,我们比较了包括基于血清学的生化试验、PCR 检测、使用通用生物特征检测阵列(UBDA)的微阵列分析以及布鲁氏菌属全基因组“深度”测序在内的四种诊断方法,包括一些现场分离株。我们发现,尽管不同的检测方法经常一致,但一些检测方法给出了复合/矛盾的结果,这是由于混合感染或 UBDA 测量和全基因组序列验证的小污染物导致的物种多样性。通过比较这些分析技术,我们证明了现场使用的标准诊断方法在识别现场分离株中的基因组 DNA 污染物方面存在局限性,而 UBDA 和测序分析在追踪分离株之间的基因组差异方面具有高度敏感性。