4.7 Article

Multilocus Variable-Number Tandem-Repeat Analysis and Multilocus Sequence Typing Reveal Genetic Relationships among Clostridium difficile Isolates Genotyped by Restriction Endonuclease Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 412-418

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01315-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [K24 AI052788] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numbers of Clostridium difficile infections have increased worldwide in the past decade. While infection with C. difficile remains predominantly a health care-associated infection, there may also be an increased incidence of community-associated infections. C. difficile strains of public health significance continue to emerge, and reliable genotyping methods for epidemiological investigations and global surveillance of C. difficile are required. In this study, multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) were performed on a set of 157 spatially and temporally diverse C. difficile isolates that had been previously genotyped by restriction endonuclease analysis (REA) to determine the concordance among these genotyping methods. In addition, sequence analysis of the tcdC genotype was performed to investigate the association of allelic variants with epidemic C. difficile isolates. Overall, the MLST and MLVA data were concordant with REA genotyping data. MLST was less discriminatory than either MLVA or REA, yet this method established C. difficile genetic lineage. MLVA was highly discriminatory and demonstrated relationships among the MLST genetic lineages and REA genotypes that were previously unrecognized. Several tcdC genotypes were specific to epidemic clones, highlighting the possible importance of toxin misregulation in C. difficile disease pathogenesis. This study demonstrates that a combination of MLST and MLVA may prove useful for the investigation and surveillance of emergent C. difficile clones of global public health concern.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据