Rath P M, Marggraf G, Dermoumi H, Ansorg R
Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie der Universität-GH, Essen, Germany.
Mycoses. 1995 Nov-Dec;38(11-12):429-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.1995.tb00015.x.
Aspergillus fumigatus isolates (n = 6) from a lung transplant recipient, one isolate from a patient who had been on the same ward and a reference strain (NCPF 2140) were compared using three typing methods: SDS-PAGE, immunoblotting with serum from the transplant patient and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay. Neither the SDS-PAGE, immunoblot nor RAPD assay with single primers revealed differences between the eight isolates. Digestion of one primer product with the endonuclease EcoRI discriminated between the six patient isolates and the other two strains. The RAPD assay using pairwise combined primers showed identical patterns for the patient's strains but differentiated between the two other strains. It is concluded that any single technique may fail to detect strain differences and that a spectrum of typing methods is necessary in order to reveal or to exclude cross-infections with Aspergillus fumigatus.
使用三种分型方法对来自一名肺移植受者的烟曲霉分离株(n = 6)、来自同一病房一名患者的一株分离株以及一株参考菌株(NCPF 2140)进行了比较:十二烷基硫酸钠-聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳(SDS-PAGE)、用移植患者血清进行免疫印迹以及随机扩增多态性DNA(RAPD)分析。SDS-PAGE、免疫印迹或单引物RAPD分析均未显示这八株分离株之间存在差异。用核酸内切酶EcoRI消化一种引物产物可区分六株患者分离株和其他两株菌株。使用成对组合引物的RAPD分析显示患者菌株具有相同的图谱,但可区分其他两株菌株。得出的结论是,任何单一技术都可能无法检测到菌株差异,为了揭示或排除烟曲霉的交叉感染,需要一系列分型方法。