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 Kristjánsson, M
Right arrow Articles by Arbeit, R D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kristjánsson, M
Right arrow Articles by Arbeit, R D
J Clin Microbiol. 1994 August; 32(8): 1963-1969

Comparison of restriction endonuclease analysis, ribotyping, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for molecular differentiation of Clostridium difficile strains.

M Kristjánsson, M H Samore, D N Gerding, P C DeGirolami, K M Bettin, A W Karchmer and R D Arbeit

Section of Infectious Diseases, Medical Service, VA Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02130.

ABSTRACT

A combined clinical and molecular epidemiologic analysis of 46 strains of Clostridium difficile, including 16 nosocomial isolates from one ward (outbreak ward) plus 17 other nosocomial isolates and 13 community-acquired isolates, was performed. HindIII digests of total cellular DNA were analyzed by restriction enzyme analysis (REA) and ribotyping; SmaI digests were analyzed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Isolates were assigned to typing groups on the basis of the profiles detected; isolates with closely related profiles were assigned to subgroups. The 16 isolates from the outbreak ward were resolved by both REA and PFGE into five distinct groups; 13 isolates represented two REA groups and three PFGE groups and two isolates were resolved as distinct groups by both techniques. DNA obtained from one isolate was persistently partially degraded, precluding analysis by PFGE. Seventeen sporadic nosocomial isolates were resolved by REA and PFGE into comparable numbers of groups (i.e., nine groups) and subgroups (i.e., 15 and 14 subgroups, respectively), with two isolates not evaluable by PFGE. The 13 epidemiologically unrelated community-acquired isolates were assigned to 11 groups by REA and to 12 groups by PFGE. Overall, ribotyping identified only nine groups among the 46 isolates. We conclude that REA and PFGE have comparable discriminatory powers for epidemiologic typing of C. difficile isolates and that ribotyping is appreciably less discriminatory. For a few isolates, partial DNA degradation prevented analysis by PFGE but not by REA or ribotyping; the cause of the degradation is unknown.

J Clin Microbiol. 1994 August; 32(8): 1963-1969




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.