Gerner-Smidt P, Graves L M, Hunter S, Swaminathan B
Department of Gastrointestinal Infections, Statens Seruminstitut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 May;36(5):1318-23. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.5.1318-1323.1998.
Two computerized restriction fragment length polymorphism pattern analysis systems, the BioImage system and the GelCompar system (Molecular Analyst Fingerprinting Plus in the United States), were compared. The two systems use different approaches to compare patterns from different gels. In GelCompar, a standard reference pattern in one gel is used to normalize subsequent gels containing lanes with the same reference pattern. In BioImage, the molecular sizes of the fragments are calculated from size standards present in each gel. The molecular size estimates obtained with the two systems for 12 restriction fragments of phage lambda were between 97 and 101% of their actual sizes, with a standard deviation of less than 1% of the average estimated size for most fragments. At the window sizes used for analysis, the GelCompar system performed somewhat better than BioImage in identifying visually identical patterns generated by electrophoretic separation of HhaI-restricted DNA of Listeria monocytogenes. Both systems require the user to make critical decisions in the analysis. It is very important to visually verify that the systems are finding all bands in each lane and that no artifacts are being detected; both systems allow manual editing. It is also important to verify results obtained in the pattern matching or clustering portions of the analysis.
对两种计算机化的限制性片段长度多态性模式分析系统——BioImage系统和GelCompar系统(美国的Molecular Analyst Fingerprinting Plus)进行了比较。这两种系统采用不同的方法来比较不同凝胶上的模式。在GelCompar系统中,一块凝胶上的标准参考模式用于对后续含有相同参考模式泳道的凝胶进行标准化。在BioImage系统中,片段的分子大小是根据每块凝胶中存在的大小标准来计算的。用这两种系统对噬菌体λ的12个限制性片段进行分子大小估计,结果在其实际大小的97%至101%之间,大多数片段的标准偏差小于平均估计大小的1%。在用于分析的窗口大小下,在识别由单核细胞增生李斯特菌的HhaI限制性DNA电泳分离产生的视觉上相同的模式方面,GelCompar系统比BioImage系统表现稍好。两种系统都要求用户在分析中做出关键决策。目视确认系统是否找到了每条泳道中的所有条带以及是否没有检测到伪影非常重要;两种系统都允许手动编辑。核实分析的模式匹配或聚类部分所获得的结果也很重要。