Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 2009, p. 3313-3322, Vol. 47, No. 10
0095-1137/09/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JCM.00910-09
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

,1
X. Huijsdens,3
P. Butaye,2,4 and
M. Heyndrickx1
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Technology and Food Science Unit, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090 Melle, Belgium,1 Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre, Groeselenberg 99, 1180 Brussels, Belgium,2 National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands,3 Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Bacteriology, Pathology and Poultry Diseases, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium4
Received 8 May 2009/ Returned for modification 23 July 2009/ Accepted 17 August 2009
This study evaluates the multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat assay (MLVA) and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) when using restriction enzymes BstZI, SacII, and ApaI to fingerprint a diverse collection of methicillin (meticillin)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) sequence type 398 (ST398) isolates. These isolates had been characterized previously by multilocus sequence typing, spa typing, and staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) typing. Typeability and discriminatory power were analyzed, and the concordance between the various methods was determined. All MRSA ST398 isolates were typeable by the MLVA and PFGE using BstZI, SacII, and ApaI. With each method, the MRSA ST398 isolates formed a separate group from the two non-ST398 MRSA strains. PFGE, performed with any of the three restriction enzymes, had the most discriminatory power, followed by MLVA, spa typing, and SCCmec typing. The MLVA showed the highest concordance with PFGE using ApaI and spa typing. As further expressed by the Wallace coefficient, the MLVA type was poorly predicted by spa typing, whereas the spa type was well predicted by MLVA. PFGE, using a combination of all three restriction enzymes, had the highest concordance with the MLVA but had a low probability of being predicted by MLVA. PFGE, using a combination of all three restriction enzymes, was able to predict SCCmec type and MLVA type completely and had a high probability of predicting spa type. Both the MLVA and PFGE could be used to discriminate among the MRSA ST398 isolates. Although the MLVA is a faster technique, PFGE had more discriminatory power than the MLVA, especially when a combination of restriction enzymes was used.
Published ahead of print on 26 August 2009.
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»