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 Lück, P C
Right arrow Articles by Klepp, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lück, P C
Right arrow Articles by Klepp, M
J Clin Microbiol. 1994 November; 32(11): 2692-2697

Epidemiologic investigation by macrorestriction analysis and by using monoclonal antibodies of nosocomial pneumonia caused by Legionella pneumophila serogroup 10.

P C Lück, J H Helbig, U Günter, M Assmann, R Blau, H Koch and M Klepp

Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Hygiene, Universitätsklinikum, TU Dresden, Germany.

ABSTRACT

A 67-year-old woman was hospitalized with an acute pneumonia of the left lower lobe. Legionella pneumophila serogroup 10 was cultured from two sputum specimens taken on days 18 and 20 and was also detected by direct immunofluorescence assay by using a commercially available species-specific monoclonal antibody as well as serogroup 10-specific monoclonal antibodies. Antigenuria was detected in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays by using serogroup 10-specific polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. In the indirect immunofluorescence test rising antibody titers against serogroups 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 were found in serum, with the highest titers found against serogroups 8, 9, and 10. L. pneumophila serogroups 10 and 6 and a strain that reacted with serogroup 4 and 14 antisera were cultured from both central and peripheral hot water systems of the hospital. Macrorestriction analyses of the genomic DNAs by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis showed that the isolate from the patient was identical to the serogroup 10 strains from the hospital hot water system. In contrast, the genomic DNAs of 16 unrelated L. pneumophila serogroup 10 strains showed 12 different restriction patterns. Monoclonal antibody subtyping revealed only minor differences in L. pneumophila serogroup 10 strains isolated from different sources. In conclusion, macrorestriction analysis is a valuable tool for studying the molecular epidemiology of L. pneumophila serogroup 10.


J Clin Microbiol. 1994 November; 32(11): 2692-2697




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 © 1994 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.