TABLE 3.

Comparison between molecular epidemiological data generated over six consecutive 2-year intervals by IS6110 RFLP and MIRU-VNTR genotyping methods

MethodAvg value (range)
No. of strainsNo. of clusters% Clustering% Pair-wise matching concordance% Pair-wise mismatching concordance% Concordance between unique strains
IS6110 RFLP17.9 (7-20)6.1 (4-10)74.5 (55.4-86.7)100NAf100
MIRU-VNTR locus combinations
    12-MIRUa9.9 (5-14)4.6 (2-7)85.1 (60.0-93.1)69.7 (60-80)92.8 (72-99)19.1 (6.1-60.0)
    12-MIRU + ETR A, B, Cb10.9 (7-14)4.9 (3-7)83.1 (60.0-91.7)63.7 (44-72)95.0 (84-99)25.7 (15.6-60.0)
    12-MIRU + hypervariable locic15.4 (8-22)4.0 (2-6)73.1 (60.0-77.8)52.7 (40-58)94.0 (77-99)42.2 (27.0-66.7)
    15-MIRU-VNTRd12.0 (5-17)3.7 (2-5)80.3 (66.7-93.1)68.2 (45-78)92.3 (70-99)31.3 (16.7-60.0)
    15-MIRU-VNTR + hypervariable locie16.6 (7-23)3.6 (2-6)70.7 (57.6-76.4)51.0 (22-63)94.0 (76-100)50.9 (32.0-66.7)
    24-MIRU-VNTRd13.6 (7-19)4.6 (3-6)77.8 (60.0-89.7)55.0 (44-69)95.2 (84-99)35.4 (24.0-60.0)
    24-MIRU-VNTR + hypervariable locic18.1 (9-25)4.3 (3-7)67.7 (54.5-75.0)40.2 (22-51)95.0 (84-99)51.3 (32.0-66.7)
  • a According to reference 22.

  • b According to reference 8.

  • c According to this study.

  • d According to reference 21.

  • e According to reference 10.

  • f NA, not applicable.