JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Van Looveren, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goossens, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Looveren, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goossens, H.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 1999, p. 2183-2188, Vol. 37, No. 7
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of the Discriminatory Power of Typing Methods for Neisseria gonorrhoeae

M. Van Looveren,1,* C. A. Ison,2 M. Ieven,1 P. Vandamme,1,3 I. M. Martin,2 K. Vermeulen,1 A. Renton,4 and H. Goossens1

Department of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Antwerp, University of Antwerp, Antwerp,1 and Laboratory of Microbiology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Ghent, Ghent,3 Belgium, and Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Imperial College School of Medicine, St. Mary's Campus,2 and Department of Social Sciences and Medicine, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine,4 London, United Kingdom

Received 9 December 1998/Returned for modification 28 January 1999/Accepted 6 April 1999

A panel of 18 strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, known to be temporally and geographically diverse, was used to evaluate a number of typing systems, including conventional auxotyping and serotyping and the molecular methods of arbitrarily primed PCR (AP-PCR), amplified ribosomal-DNA restriction analysis (ARDRA), opa typing, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). The discriminatory power of the different typing methods were determined with a collection of 87 clinical isolates from commercial sex workers in Indonesia, and Simpson's index of diversity was calculated. Of the two traditional techniques, auxotyping and serotyping, the latter gives the highest discriminatory index (DI) (DI, 0.846). The combination of auxotyping and serotyping yields a high DI (DI, 0.928). D11344- and D8635-primed PCR showed low DIs of 0.608 and 0.622, respectively, but a combination of the two primers had a DI of 0.849. The combination of serotyping with D11344-primed or D8635-primed PCR resulted in DIs of 0.936 and 0.937, respectively. ARDRA revealed a low DI of 0.743 alone but a DI of 0.955 in combination with serotyping. PFGE using the restriction enzyme BglII and opa typing produced the highest discrimination (DIs, 0.997 and 0.996, respectively) for isolates of N. gonorrhoeae.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium. Phone: 32 3 820-25-51. Fax: 32 3 820-26-63. E-mail: vloovere{at}uia.ua.ac.be.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 1999, p. 2183-2188, Vol. 37, No. 7
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


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 © 1999 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.