Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Research Article

Comparison of plasmid- and chromosome-based polymerase chain reaction assays for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis nucleic acids.

J B Mahony, K E Luinstra, J W Sellors, M A Chernesky
J B Mahony
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K E Luinstra
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J W Sellors
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M A Chernesky
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Several laboratories have demonstrated that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is more sensitive than culture or enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in genitourinary tract specimens when various DNA targets are used for amplification, including the cryptic plasmid, major outer membrane protein (MOMP), or rRNA genes. We compared the performances of five different PCR assays, including assays with two plasmid, two MOMP, and one rRNA targets, by amplifying serial dilutions of C. trachomatis DNA and testing genitourinary tract specimens. By using published procedures, two different plasmid primers had sensitivities of 0.1 fg for C. trachomatis plasmid DNA and 10 fg for total cellular DNA. The sensitivities of the assays with the two MOMP primers were 0.1 and 10 pg, and the sensitivity for the assay with the rRNA primers was 1 pg for cellular DNA. Both plasmid-based assays detected 38 of 38 confirmed Chlamydiazyme-positive specimens, whereas the assays with the MOMP and rRNA primers detected 36 of 38 and 29 of 38 confirmed Chlamydiazyme-positive specimens, respectively. Six of 18 Chlamydiazyme-negative specimens collected from individuals whose specimens were positive by culture or immunofluorescence were positive by both plasmid-based PCRs; 4 of these were positive by PCR with the MOMP primers and 3 were positive by PCR with the rRNA primers. The results obtained with both purified DNA and genitourinary tract specimens indicated that the plasmid-based PCRs are more sensitive than bacterial chromosome-based PCRs for detecting C. trachomatis.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of plasmid- and chromosome-based polymerase chain reaction assays for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis nucleic acids.
J B Mahony, K E Luinstra, J W Sellors, M A Chernesky
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 1993, 31 (7) 1753-1758; DOI:

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of plasmid- and chromosome-based polymerase chain reaction assays for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis nucleic acids.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of plasmid- and chromosome-based polymerase chain reaction assays for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis nucleic acids.
J B Mahony, K E Luinstra, J W Sellors, M A Chernesky
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jul 1993, 31 (7) 1753-1758; DOI:
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X