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 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 Palacios, G.
Right arrow Articles by Freire, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Palacios, G.
Right arrow Articles by Freire, C.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2002, p. 182-192, Vol. 40, No. 1
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.1.182-192.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Molecular Identification of Enterovirus by Analyzing a Partial VP1 Genomic Region with Different Methods

G. Palacios,1* I. Casas,2 A. Tenorio,2 and C. Freire1

Neurovirosis Division, Virology Department, National Institute for Infectious Disease, "Dr. Carlos G. Malbrán," Buenos Aires, Argentina,1 Service of Diagnostic Microbiology, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain2

Received 20 February 2001/ Returned for modification 19 August 2001/ Accepted 28 October 2001

VP1 is the most suitable region for use in the identification of enterovirus. Although VP1 sequencing methods may vary, it is necessary to agree on a common strategy of sequence analysis. Identification of a strain type may be achieved by three different approaches: pairwise sequence alignment, multiple-sequence alignment, and phylogenetic inference. Other methods are also available, but they are not simple enough to be performed at a virology laboratory. The performances of these methods were evaluated with nucleotide and protein sequences obtained from 32 original samples, 8 enterovirus isolates, and 64 GenBank sequences. Pairwise sequence alignment methods had very different results. The DNASTAR package identified only 28.8% of enterovirus strains, while the Genetics Computer Group package identified 50.0 or 72.1% of enterovirus strains when nucleotide or amino acid sequences were analyzed, respectively. Multiple-sequence alignment methods identified 94.2% (Clustal W program) or 92.3% (Pileup program) of the enterovirus strains, while the phylogenetic method increased this rate to 99.0%. Comparative evaluation of these analysis methods showed that the Clustal W program (version 1.81), a freely available multiple-sequence alignment program, presented one of the best performances when used with the correct criteria. Other commercial and expensive programs did not achieve the same performances, making them less suitable for molecular typing of enteroviruses. Finally, although phylogenetic inference is the most demanding method in terms of knowledge of the user, it remained the best option analyzed.


* Corresponding author. Present address: Virology Department, School of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Junin 956, Postal Code 1113, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Phone: 5411-4964-8264. Fax: 5411-4302-5064. E-mail: gpalacios{at}impsat1.com.ar.


Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2002, p. 182-192, Vol. 40, No. 1
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.1.182-192.2002
Copyright © 2002, 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 © 2002 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.