Suppr超能文献

用于艰难梭菌菌株分子鉴别分析的限制性内切酶分析、核糖体分型和脉冲场凝胶电泳方法的比较

Comparison of restriction endonuclease analysis, ribotyping, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for molecular differentiation of Clostridium difficile strains.

作者信息

Kristjánsson M, Samore M H, Gerding D N, DeGirolami P C, Bettin K M, Karchmer A W, Arbeit R D

机构信息

Section of Infectious Diseases, Medical Service, VA Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02130.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Aug;32(8):1963-9. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.8.1963-1969.1994.

Abstract

A combined clinical and molecular epidemiologic analysis of 46 strains of Clostridium difficile, including 16 nosocomial isolates from one ward (outbreak ward) plus 17 other nosocomial isolates and 13 community-acquired isolates, was performed. HindIII digests of total cellular DNA were analyzed by restriction enzyme analysis (REA) and ribotyping; SmaI digests were analyzed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Isolates were assigned to typing groups on the basis of the profiles detected; isolates with closely related profiles were assigned to subgroups. The 16 isolates from the outbreak ward were resolved by both REA and PFGE into five distinct groups; 13 isolates represented two REA groups and three PFGE groups and two isolates were resolved as distinct groups by both techniques. DNA obtained from one isolate was persistently partially degraded, precluding analysis by PFGE. Seventeen sporadic nosocomial isolates were resolved by REA and PFGE into comparable numbers of groups (i.e., nine groups) and subgroups (i.e., 15 and 14 subgroups, respectively), with two isolates not evaluable by PFGE. The 13 epidemiologically unrelated community-acquired isolates were assigned to 11 groups by REA and to 12 groups by PFGE. Overall, ribotyping identified only nine groups among the 46 isolates. We conclude that REA and PFGE have comparable discriminatory powers for epidemiologic typing of C. difficile isolates and that ribotyping is appreciably less discriminatory. For a few isolates, partial DNA degradation prevented analysis by PFGE but not by REA or ribotyping; the cause of the degradation is unknown.

摘要

对46株艰难梭菌进行了临床与分子流行病学联合分析,其中包括来自一个病房(暴发病房)的16株医院分离株、另外17株医院分离株以及13株社区获得性分离株。通过限制性内切酶分析(REA)和核糖体分型对总细胞DNA的HindIII酶切产物进行分析;通过脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE)对SmaI酶切产物进行分析。根据检测到的图谱将分离株分为不同的分型组;图谱密切相关的分离株被归入亚组。暴发病房的16株分离株通过REA和PFGE均被分为五个不同的组;13株分离株代表两个REA组和三个PFGE组,另外两株分离株通过两种技术均被分为不同的组。从一株分离株获得的DNA持续出现部分降解,无法通过PFGE进行分析。17株散发性医院分离株通过REA和PFGE被分为数量相当的组(即九个组)和亚组(分别为15个和14个亚组),有两株分离株无法通过PFGE进行评估。13株流行病学上不相关的社区获得性分离株通过REA被分为11个组,通过PFGE被分为12个组。总体而言,核糖体分型在46株分离株中仅鉴定出九个组。我们得出结论,REA和PFGE对艰难梭菌分离株进行流行病学分型具有相当的鉴别能力,而核糖体分型的鉴别能力明显较低。对于少数分离株,DNA部分降解妨碍了PFGE分析,但不影响REA或核糖体分型分析;降解的原因尚不清楚。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0d0f/263911/5c09d8bab935/jcm00008-0144-a.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验