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 Washburn, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Beck, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Washburn, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Beck, B.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Sep 1995, 2271-2279, Vol 33, No. 9
Copyright © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Mycoplasma arthritidis strains by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, immunoblotting, and DNA restriction analysis

LR Washburn, LL Voelker, LJ Ehle, S Hirsch, C Dutenhofer, K Olson and B Beck
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Vermillion 57069-2390, USA.

Twenty Mycoplasma arthritidis strains or isolates were compared by a combination of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay by an antiserum adsorption technique, Western immunoblotting, and restriction analysis of chromosomal DNA. Antigenic markers that defined strains related to strains 158p10p9, PG6, and H606 were identified. In addition, restriction analysis allowed all 20 strains to be divided into six groups. Results of restriction analysis corresponded generally with antigenic similarities, although the former did not allow grouping with as fine a precision as the latter. However, intrastrain antigenic variability, which is common among many Mycoplasma species, including M. arthritidis, introduced a complicating factor into our attempts at antigenic analysis. While serologic and antigenic analyses remain useful, we recommend that they be used with caution and in combination with other techniques for identifying and characterizing new isolates and newly acquired strains. Combinations of these techniques have proven to be useful in our laboratory for quality control and for uncovering interesting relationships among strains subjected to animal passage and their less virulent antecedents and among strains originally classified as the same but obtained from different sources and maintained, sometimes for decades, in different laboratories.


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 © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.