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
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • 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
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • 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
Epidemiology

Clostridium difficile Ribotype Diversity at Six Health Care Institutions in the United States

Sheila Waslawski, Eugene S. Lo, Sarah A. Ewing, Vincent B. Young, David M. Aronoff, Susan E. Sharp, Susan M. Novak-Weekley, Arthur E. Crist, Jr., W. Michael Dunne, Joan Hoppe-Bauer, Michelle Johnson, Stephen M. Brecher, Duane W. Newton, Seth T. Walk
Sheila Waslawski
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eugene S. Lo
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah A. Ewing
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vincent B. Young
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USADepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David M. Aronoff
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USADepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Sharp
Kaiser Permanente-NW, Portland, Oregon, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan M. Novak-Weekley
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Regional Reference Laboratories, North Hollywood, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Arthur E. Crist
Department of Laboratory Services, Division of Clinical Microbiology, York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Michael Dunne
bioMérieux, Durham, North CarolinaDepartment of Microbiology, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joan Hoppe-Bauer
Department of Microbiology, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Johnson
Department of Microbiology, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen M. Brecher
VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Duane W. Newton
Clinical Microbiology Laboratories, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Seth T. Walk
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USADepartment of Microbiology, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00056-13
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Capillary-based PCR ribotyping was used to quantify the presence/absence and relative abundance of 98 Clostridium difficile ribotypes from clinical cases of disease at health care institutions in six states of the United States. Regionally important ribotypes were identified, and institutions in close proximity did not necessarily share more ribotype diversity than institutions that were farther apart.

TEXT

National and international studies strongly suggest that Clostridium difficile populations are geographically distinct (1–5), meaning the composition of C. difficile genotypes varies from region to region. In the United States, there are currently few data concerning the composition, or structure, of the C. difficile population and whether health care institutions that are in close proximity are more similar with respect to ribotype diversity than those that are farther apart. The goals of this study were to quantify the abundance and diversity of C. difficile ribotypes from cases of C. difficile infection (CDI) at health care institutions in six states across the United States and to determine whether ribotype diversity was structured geographically.

Stool samples from CDI-positive patients were collected from diagnostic laboratories at six health care institutions (West Roxbury, MA; York, PA; Ann Arbor, MI; St. Louis, MO; Portland, OR; and North Hollywood, CA) between 15 February 2011 and 9 September 2011 and shipped in small batches (typically 5 to 10 samples) overnight on ice to the University of Michigan for processing (Ann Arbor, MI, samples were obtained directly from the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at the University of Michigan Health System and were not shipped). A variety of CDI diagnostic methods were represented across the institutions (Table 1), and CDI cases were defined based on center-specific diagnostic results. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained as appropriate by the participating institutions. Culture was attempted for all samples submitted by each center. On three occasions, samples from three centers were unable to be processed (i.e., plated) within 24 h of receiving due to the lack of available study personnel. These samples were not included in the study. An aliquot from each sample was cultured under anaerobic conditions on prereduced taurocholate cefoxitin cycloserine fructose agar (TCCFA) plates to select for individual C. difficile colonies (6). All TCCFA plates were prepared at the University of Michigan. All samples were frozen at −80°C and recultured a second time if the first attempt at culture was unsuccessful. A single colony was analyzed from each stool sample, and the toxigenicity of isolates was inferred based on results of PCR for a C. difficile-specific region of the 16S rRNA-encoding gene (7) and tcdA (toxin A) or tcdB (toxin B) (8). The absence of tcdA or tcdB was not confirmed for all isolates (i.e., tcdA can be variably present/absent and primers may or may not amplify all tcdA/tcdB alleles), but all toxigenic isolates were positive for at least one toxin gene. Potential nontoxigenic isolates identified as toxin gene negative by PCR were confirmed as C. difficile using specific 16S gene PCR and confirmed as nontoxigenic using a Vero cell assay (9). A range of isolates from each center (79% to 94%) were confirmed to be toxigenic C. difficile (Table 1), and the overall recovery of toxigenic isolates did not differ significantly across the six centers (P = 0.074). Although not significantly different, samples that tested positive by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) alone (Missouri) tended to have a higher culture-positive rate than the other centers that used nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) (Table 1). Whether EIA positivity is more predictive of C. difficile growth on TCCFA than NAAT positivity remains an interesting question to be addressed in further studies.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Stool samples and C. difficile isolates obtained from confirmed CDI cases at six health care institutions in the United States

Fluorescent PCR ribotyping was conducted using capillary gel electrophoresis as previously reported (10), and a total of 98 different ribotypes were identified. Approximately half (n = 50) of the ribotypes were observed at least twice, and the remaining half (n = 48) were observed a single time (i.e., a single isolate). The number of toxigenic ribotypes at a particular site correlated significantly with the number of isolates examined (Pearson correlation; P = 0.006; R2 = 0.87), indicating that additional ribotypes would have been identified with deeper sampling. We had initially hoped that our sampling design would provide an overall estimate of the number of toxigenic C. difficile ribotypes in U.S. circulation. However, the strong (R2 = 0.87), near-linear relationship between the number of ribotypes observed and the number of isolates examined indicated that we identified only the most abundant ribotypes at each institution and that the actual number of toxigenic C. difficile ribotypes is much greater than 98. Other collections have identified, or at least named, over 270 different ribotypes (11). However, there are few data with which to compare the total number of ribotypes within or between countries because there is currently no internationally recognized C. difficile ribotype reference collection. For example, a collection of 80 C. difficile ribotypes was recently published (11), but it is not clear whether non-European representative isolates were included in this collection. In this study, we identified 10 ribotypes for which we had reference cultures. The identity of the remaining 88 ribotypes and international data comparison rely on the future establishment of a representative C. difficile ribotype collection.

A median of 7.6% (range, 0.0% to 11.0%) of isolates per institution were specific to a single location, indicating that a significant percentage of CDI-causing isolates were regionally versus nationally important. Contingency table analysis with a Bonferroni correction (P value/total number of tests) indicated that the abundance of ribotype 027 was statistically different (P < 0.0005) across the six institutions (Table 2). Ribotype 027 was more abundant than any other ribotype at four out of six sites, but 014-020 was the most abundant at the Oregon site and nearly equal to 027 at the Michigan site. To visualize how similar institutions were with respect to the overall composition of C. difficile ribotypes, we used an ecological diversity metric (Morisita-Horn) to cluster sites based on similarity (Fig. 1). This type of analysis considers both the presence/absence and the relative abundance of all ribotypes (not just a select few). Branch lengths in the resulting dendrogram are then proportional to C. difficile population similarity (i.e., the more similar that sites are in ribotype composition, the shorter the branches connecting them). Therefore, if the distance between institutions has a strong influence on ribotype diversity, we would expect institutions in close proximity to cluster together in the dendrogram. Two main clusters (A and B) were observed, but they were not easily explained by geographic proximity (e.g., Oregon is closer to California than Michigan). Alternatively, abundance data (Table 2) indicated that the two clusters differed noticeably in ribotype 027 and 014-020 abundance. For example, a median of 32% of isolates (range, 25% to 51%) were ribotype 027 at sites in Pennsylvania, Missouri, California, and Massachusetts (cluster A), as opposed to only 11% in Oregon and 19% in Michigan (cluster B).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Ribotype abundance at six U.S. health care institutions

Fig 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1

Ribotype-based C. difficile population diversity. An unweighted-pair group method using average linkages (UPGMA) dendrogram displays the similarity between six U.S. health care institutions based on the presence/absence and relative abundance of all ribotypes observed in this study (Morisita-Horn index). Pie charts display the percentages of two main ribotypes (027 and 014-020) and all remaining (“other”) ribotypes for clusters A and B.

At this level of sampling, it appears that U.S. health care institutions can be differentiated by the high versus moderate abundance of ribotype 027. Data from Wilcox et al. found that 027 abundance decreased significantly in England from 2007 to 2010 (5) but remained the most abundant ribotype in the country (overall, ∼30%). The Wilcox et al. study included 11,294 isolates, compared to 720 isolates in our study, so there is a large discrepancy between the two with respect to overall sample size. However, it is not directly apparent from the Wilcox et al. paper how many isolates were included from each institution and over what period of time, so a direct per-center comparison of sample size is difficult to assess. Temporal data are needed to determine whether U.S. trends mirror those of England and other countries, but our results confirm that ribotype 027 is currently as abundant as or even less abundant than other toxigenic ribotypes at some U.S. institutions.

A tracking study of C. difficile disease at health care institutions in selected counties of 10 U.S. states was initiated in 2009 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/clostridium-difficile.html). Results from this study presented at the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conference in 2011 indicated that ribotype 027 isolates (also known as North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type NAP1) comprised 28% of the C. difficile population (322 isolates from hospitalized patients across five centers in 2010) (12). Our finding of a mean 027 abundance of 29% across six centers supports this general finding. An important detail that our data show, however, is that 027 abundance varies widely across institutions (13% to 45%).

In light of recent data from Tenover et al. (13), heterogeneity in C. difficile ribotype composition may potentially influence CDI diagnostic results. Recently published guidelines recommend either the sole use of high-sensitivity nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) or a two- or three-step algorithm composed of EIA (for glutamate dehydrogenase [GDH] and/or C. difficile toxin) and NAAT (14). Since EIA is currently cheaper than NAAT, EIA may remain useful as a prescreening tool in clinical laboratories. Thus, additional studies should be conducted to estimate the effect of ribotype diversity on false-positive/false-negative rates across institutions.

A limitation of our study design was the use of deidentified patient samples. We therefore were unable to account for duplicate samples or recurrent and nonnosocomial cases. Another important limitation was that only one C. difficile colony per sample was considered. It is possible that cultivable, toxigenic isolates would have been recovered from samples that yielded nontoxigenic isolates, although the overall number of nontoxigenic isolates was low and not likely to have significantly influenced our overall results. It is also possible that more than one toxigenic C. difficile ribotype was present in the same sample. Such cases are not necessarily rare and may comprise up to 13% of samples in some situations (15). Future studies that incorporate deeper sampling are needed to understand the rate of mixed CDI among health care institutions.

In summary, C. difficile ribotype data from six health care institutions across the United States suggest that there are many (>98) different ribotypes in circulation and that there is significant heterogeneity in ribotype composition across these regions. The abundance of ribotypes 027 and 014-020, but not geographic proximity, correlated with compositional variation between C. difficile populations. Finally, our results illustrate the potential importance of regionally versus nationally circulating isolates (∼7.6%) as well as the presence of a large amount of undersampled C. difficile genetic diversity. More-representative data of C. difficile populations, including these rarer members, are needed to better assess the impact of ribotype on sensitivity/specificity of currently used diagnostic algorithms and clinical treatment of CDI.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by institutional funds from the Department of Pathology at the University of Michigan. Additional support came from the National Institutes of Health grants 1U19AI090871-01 (to V.B.Y. and D.M.A.) and 1K01AI09728101A1 (to S.T.W.).

W. Michael Dunne is employed by bioMérieux.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 8 January 2013.
    • Returned for modification 20 February 2013.
    • Accepted 25 March 2013.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 3 April 2013.
  • Copyright © 2013, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bauer MP,
    2. Notermans DW,
    3. van Benthem BH,
    4. Brazier JS,
    5. Wilcox MH,
    6. Rupnik M,
    7. Monnet DL,
    8. van Dissel JT,
    9. Kuijper EJ
    . 2011. Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a hospital-based survey. Lancet 377:63–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Cheknis AK,
    2. Sambol SP,
    3. Davidson DM,
    4. Nagaro KJ,
    5. Mancini MC,
    6. Hidalgo-Arroyo GA,
    7. Brazier JS,
    8. Johnson S,
    9. Gerding DN
    . 2009. Distribution of Clostridium difficile strains from a North American, European and Australian trial of treatment for C. difficile infections: 2005-2007. Anaerobe 15:230–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kim H,
    2. Jeong SH,
    3. Roh KH,
    4. Hong SG,
    5. Kim JW,
    6. Shin MG,
    7. Kim MN,
    8. Shin HB,
    9. Uh Y,
    10. Lee H,
    11. Lee K
    . 2010. Investigation of toxin gene diversity, molecular epidemiology, and antimicrobial resistance of Clostridium difficile isolated from 12 hospitals in South Korea. Korean J. Lab. Med. 30:491–497.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Miller M,
    2. Gravel D,
    3. Mulvey M,
    4. Taylor G,
    5. Boyd D,
    6. Simor A,
    7. Gardam M,
    8. McGeer A,
    9. Hutchinson J,
    10. Moore D,
    11. Kelly S
    . 2010. Health care-associated Clostridium difficile infection in Canada: patient age and infecting strain type are highly predictive of severe outcome and mortality. Clin. Infect. Dis. 50:194–201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Wilcox MH,
    2. Shetty N,
    3. Fawley WN,
    4. Shemko M,
    5. Coen P,
    6. Birtles A,
    7. Cairns M,
    8. Curran MD,
    9. Dodgson KJ,
    10. Green SM,
    11. Hardy KJ,
    12. Hawkey PM,
    13. Magee JG,
    14. Sails AD,
    15. Wren MW
    . 2012. Changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection following the introduction of a national ribotyping based surveillance scheme in England. Clin. Infect. Dis. 55:1056–1063.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Sorg JA,
    2. Dineen SS
    . 2009. Laboratory maintenance of Clostridium difficile. Curr. Protoc. Microbiol. Chapter 9:Unit9A.1.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Rinttila T,
    2. Kassinen A,
    3. Malinen E,
    4. Krogius L,
    5. Palva A
    . 2004. Development of an extensive set of 16S rDNA-targeted primers for quantification of pathogenic and indigenous bacteria in faecal samples by real-time PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 97:1166–1177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Persson S,
    2. Torpdahl M,
    3. Olsen KE
    . 2008. New multiplex PCR method for the detection of Clostridium difficile toxin A (tcdA) and toxin B (tcdB) and the binary toxin (cdtA/cdtB) genes applied to a Danish strain collection. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 14:1057–1064.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Walk ST,
    2. Jain R,
    3. Trivedi I,
    4. Grossman S,
    5. Newton DW,
    6. Thelen T,
    7. Hao Y,
    8. Songer JG,
    9. Carter GP,
    10. Lyras D,
    11. Young VB,
    12. Aronoff DM
    . 2011. Non-toxigenic Clostridium sordellii: clinical and microbiological features of a case of cholangitis-associated bacteremia. Anaerobe 17:252–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Walk ST,
    2. Micic D,
    3. Jain R,
    4. Lo ES,
    5. Trivedi I,
    6. Liu EW,
    7. Almassalha LM,
    8. Ewing SA,
    9. Ring C,
    10. Galecki AT,
    11. Rogers MA,
    12. Washer L,
    13. Newton DW,
    14. Malani PN,
    15. Young VB,
    16. Aronoff DM
    . 2012. Clostridium difficile ribotype does not predict severe infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 55:1661–1668.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Knetsch CW,
    2. Terveer EM,
    3. Lauber C,
    4. Gorbalenya AE,
    5. Harmanus C,
    6. Kuijper EJ,
    7. Corver J,
    8. van Leeuwen HC
    . 2012. Comparative analysis of an expanded Clostridium difficile reference strain collection reveals genetic diversity and evolution through six lineages. Infect. Genet. Evol. 12:1577–1585.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cohen J,
    2. MacCannell DR,
    3. Holzbauer SM,
    4. Kast KR,
    5. Dumyati G,
    6. Winston L,
    7. Whitbread M,
    8. McDonald LC,
    9. Lessa FC
    . 2011. Impact of North American pulsed-field type 1 (NAP1) Clostridium difficile strain on disease severity and outcome, abstr 177. Abstr. Soc. Healthcare Epidemiol. Am. (SHEA) Annu. Sci. Meet., Dallas, TX, 2 April 2011.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tenover FC,
    2. Novak-Weekley S,
    3. Woods CW,
    4. Peterson LR,
    5. Davis T,
    6. Schreckenberger P,
    7. Fang FC,
    8. Dascal A,
    9. Gerding DN,
    10. Nomura JH,
    11. Goering RV,
    12. Akerlund T,
    13. Weissfeld AS,
    14. Baron EJ,
    15. Wong E,
    16. Marlowe EM,
    17. Whitmore J,
    18. Persing DH
    . 2010. Impact of strain type on detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile: comparison of molecular diagnostic and enzyme immunoassay approaches. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:3719–3724.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Surawicz CM,
    2. Brandt LJ,
    3. Binion DG,
    4. Ananthakrishnan AN,
    5. Curry SR,
    6. Gilligan PH,
    7. McFarland LV,
    8. Mellow M,
    9. Zuckerbraun BS
    . 2013. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 108:478–498.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Behroozian AA,
    2. Cludzinski JP,
    3. Lo ES,
    4. Ewing SA,
    5. Waslawski S,
    6. Newton DW,
    7. Young VB,
    8. Aronoff DM,
    9. Walk ST
    . Detection of mixed populations of Clostridium difficile from symptomatic patients using capillary-based PCR ribotyping. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol., in press.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Clostridium difficile Ribotype Diversity at Six Health Care Institutions in the United States
Sheila Waslawski, Eugene S. Lo, Sarah A. Ewing, Vincent B. Young, David M. Aronoff, Susan E. Sharp, Susan M. Novak-Weekley, Arthur E. Crist Jr., W. Michael Dunne, Joan Hoppe-Bauer, Michelle Johnson, Stephen M. Brecher, Duane W. Newton, Seth T. Walk
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2013, 51 (6) 1938-1941; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00056-13

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.
Clostridium difficile Ribotype Diversity at Six Health Care Institutions in the United States
(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.
Share
Clostridium difficile Ribotype Diversity at Six Health Care Institutions in the United States
Sheila Waslawski, Eugene S. Lo, Sarah A. Ewing, Vincent B. Young, David M. Aronoff, Susan E. Sharp, Susan M. Novak-Weekley, Arthur E. Crist Jr., W. Michael Dunne, Joan Hoppe-Bauer, Michelle Johnson, Stephen M. Brecher, Duane W. Newton, Seth T. Walk
Journal of Clinical Microbiology May 2013, 51 (6) 1938-1941; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00056-13
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • 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

Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

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