Mulligan M E, Peterson L R, Kwok R Y, Clabots C R, Gerding D N
Medical Service, West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Medical Center, California 90073.
J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Jan;26(1):41-6. doi: 10.1128/jcm.26.1.41-46.1988.
Two new methods for typing Clostridium difficile, immunoblotting and plasmid fingerprinting, were compared with serotyping and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE). Of these methods, immunoblotting was found to be the most valuable for use in a comprehensive typing system. More groups could be distinguished by immunoblotting than by serotyping or PAGE. Immunoblotting results were also more reproducible and distinctive than results by PAGE. Plasmid fingerprinting was an excellent marker for plasmid-bearing strains, but it had limited use because many isolates lacked plasmids. A unique plasmid profile observed for one group of isolates correlated with differences in phenotypic characteristics resolved by immunoblot analysis but not by serotyping or PAGE. Preliminary attempts to correlate typing results with pathogenicity of isolates were not successful but underscored the need for future studies to include careful assessment of the clinical significance of isolates.
对艰难梭菌分型的两种新方法——免疫印迹法和质粒指纹图谱法，与血清分型法和聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳（PAGE）进行了比较。在这些方法中，发现免疫印迹法在综合分型系统中最具价值。通过免疫印迹法可区分的菌群比血清分型法或PAGE更多。免疫印迹法的结果也比PAGE的结果更具可重复性和独特性。质粒指纹图谱法是携带质粒菌株的优良标记，但由于许多分离株缺乏质粒，其用途有限。在一组分离株中观察到的独特质粒图谱与通过免疫印迹分析而非血清分型法或PAGE解析的表型特征差异相关。将分型结果与分离株致病性相关联的初步尝试未获成功，但强调了未来研究需要仔细评估分离株的临床意义。
