脉冲场凝胶电泳和自动化核糖体分型方法用于 霍乱弧菌分子分型能力的比较
Comparison on capabilities of PFGE and auto-ribotyping in subtyping of Vibrio cholerae
-
摘要: 目的 比较脉冲场凝胶电泳(PFGE)和自动化核糖体分型两种方法对霍乱弧菌的分型能力。 方法 应用PFGE和自动化核糖体分型分析254株O1群和37株O139群霍乱弧菌,比较两种方法的分型力、分辨力和对暴发菌株的分析能力。 结果 PFGE将254株O1群和37株O139菌株分别分为211和21个型别,分型D值分别为0.9952和0.9339;自动化核糖体分型将同样的菌株分为101和10个型别,分型D值分别为0.9075和0.8033。PFGE和自动化核糖体分型均可以区分O1 群霍乱的暴发相关和不相关菌株。PFGE能够将不同起O139暴发来源的菌株分开,同时将相同暴发来源的菌株分为相同的型别;自动化核糖体分型不能完全区分不同起O139暴发来源的菌株,也不能将同起O139霍乱暴发来源的菌株分为相同的型别。 结论 在霍乱弧菌分型方面,PFGE和自动化核糖体分型方法均具有相同的分型力,但PFGE具有更高的分辨力和更好的暴发菌株分析能力。自动化核糖体分型方法在霍乱暴发调查中具有局限性,更适合用于菌株鉴定。Abstract: Objective To compare the capabilities of PFGE and auto-ribotyping in subtyping of Vibrio cholerae strains. Methods Totally 254 of strains of Vibrio cholerae O1 and 37 strains of Vibrio cholerae O139 were used as panels to compare the typing capabilities, discernibilities and outbreak investigation capabilities of PFGE and auto-ribotyping. Results The 254 O1 strains and 37 O139 strains were divided into 211 and 21 patterns by PFGE with D value of 0.9952 and 0.9339, respectively. Auto-ribotyping divided these strains into 101 and 10 different patterns with D value of 0.9075 and 0.8033, respectively. For O1 outbreak strains, both PFGE and auto-ribotyping could distinguish outbreak-related and unrelated strains. PFGE could cluster the isolates from each outbreak into the same pattern, and distinguish different patterns from different outbreaks, whereas auto-ribotyping had lower discernibility. Conclusion PFGE has higher discernibility compared with auto-ribotyping. Auto-ribotyping has limitation in V. cholerae subtyping and outbreak investigation.
下载: