TABLE 2.

Comparison between molecular epidemiological data generated over a 12-year interval using IS6110 RFLP and MIRU-VNTR genotyping methods

MethodGenetic distance of 0Genetic distance of 0Genetic distance of 1% Beijing sublineage discrimination
No. of genotypes% ClusteringUnique IS6110 genotype (n = 49) with:Clustered IS6110 genotype (n = 272) with:% Pair-wise matching concordance% Pair-wise mismatching concordance% Concordance between unique strainsNo. of converged genotypesNo. of diverged genotypesDiversity indexfNo. of genotypes% Pair-wise matching concordance% Pair-wise mismatching concordance% Concordance between unique strains
Unique MIRU-VNTR genotype (n)Clustered MIRU-VNTR genotype (n)Unique MIRU-VNTR genotype (n)Clustered MIRU-VNTR genotype (n)GD = 0GD = 1
IS6110 RFLP7484.7NAgNANANA100NA100NANA0.8540100NA10010099
MIRU-VNTR locus combinations
    12-MIRUa2795.064310262686920.43140.6339920961
    12-MIRU + ETR A, B, Cb3991.284118254607222.45260.6749934961
    12-MIRU + hypervariable locic6784.1143538234537128.65470.7119684993
    15-MIRU-VNTRd4789.4123722250676834.73270.63119980159999
    15-MIRU-VNTR + hypervariable locie8378.8193049223517140.85580.7209682309999
    24-MIRU-VNTRd5787.2123728244527340.87380.72159983229999
    24-MIRU-VNTR + hypervariable locic9177.3193054218398142.99680.78279688419999
  • 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 According to reference 15.

  • g NA, not applicable.