JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patton, C M
Right arrow Articles by Lior, H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patton, C M
Right arrow Articles by Lior, H
J Clin Microbiol. 1991 April; 29(4): 680-688

Evaluation of 10 methods to distinguish epidemic-associated Campylobacter strains.

C M Patton, I K Wachsmuth, G M Evins, J A Kiehlbauch, B D Plikaytis, N Troup, L Tompkins and H Lior

Division of Bacterial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

ABSTRACT

We compared four phenotypic and six genotypic methods for distinguishing Campylobacter jejuni strains from animals and humans involved in four epidemics. Based on a comparison with epidemiologic data, the methods that correctly identified all strains in three milkborne outbreaks and one waterborne outbreak were heat-stable and heat-labile serotyping; multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE); DNA restriction endonuclease analysis with BglII, XhoI, PvuII, or PstI; and Southern blot and hybridization of PvuII- and PstI-digested DNA with Escherichia coli 16S and 23S rRNA (ribotyping). Biotyping, phage typing, plasmid analysis, and probing of BglII and XhoI DNA digests with C. jejuni 16S rRNA genes failed to correctly separate one or more strains. MEE, restriction endonuclease analysis, and ribotyping were the most sensitive methods and identified nine types among the 22 strains. These methods were also capable of further distinguishing strains within the same serotype. Data from MEE were also analyzed to calculate genetic relatedness among strains. Serotyping was the most discriminating phenotypic method, with eight and seven types distinguished by the heat-stable and heat-labile methods, respectively. MEE and ribotyping had several advantages over the other methods because they measure relatively stable and significant chromosomal differences and are applicable to other species and genera. These methods, however, are complex and not easily quantified; they are currently limited to specialized laboratories. When antisera are available, serotyping appears to be an effective and more practical approach to the identification of epidemic-related strains.

J Clin Microbiol. 1991 April; 29(4): 680-688




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1991 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.