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 Price, C. S.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, L. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Price, C. S.
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, L. R.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2002, p. 1858-1861, Vol. 40, No. 5
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of an Automated Ribotyping System to Restriction Endonuclease Analysis and Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis for Differentiating Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium Isolates

Connie S. Price,1* Holly Huynh,2 Suzanne Paule,3 Richard J. Hollis,2 Gary A. Noskin,3,4 Michael A. Pfaller,2 and Lance R. Peterson1,3,4

Department of Pathology,1 Department of Medicine, Northwestern University,4 Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois,3 Department of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa2

Received 12 November 2001/ Returned for modification 10 January 2002/ Accepted 26 February 2002

The RiboPrinter Microbial Characterization System was compared with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), restriction endonuclease analysis (REA), and epidemiological data for typing 45 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) isolates. In 21 clinically related isolates, 90 to 100% were similar by PFGE and REA, but only 57% were similar by the RiboPrinter. In another eight clinically related isolates, three isolates similar by PFGE and REA were all unique by the RiboPrinter. In contrast, in 16 clinically unrelated isolates, the predominant RiboPrinter ribotype represented 50% of the strains, while the largest PFGE and REA clones represented less than 19% of the strains. These data suggest that the RiboPrinter is not reliable for VRE investigation.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: 1033 University Pl., Suite 100, Evanston, IL 60201. Phone: (847) 570-1731. Fax: (847) 570-2933. E-mail: CSPrice{at}northwestern.edu.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, May 2002, p. 1858-1861, Vol. 40, No. 5
0095-1137/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Chowdhury, S. A., Arias, C. A., Nallapareddy, S. R., Reyes, J., Willems, R. J. L., Murray, B. E. (2009). A Trilocus Sequence Typing Scheme for Hospital Epidemiology and Subspecies Differentiation of an Important Nosocomial Pathogen, Enterococcus faecalis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 2713-2719 [Abstract] [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»