five

Comparison of Different PCR Approaches for Typing of Francisella tularensis Strains

收藏
PubMed Central2026-05-16 收录
下载链接:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC86326/
下载链接
链接失效反馈
官方服务:
资源简介:
In this study, we evaluated three PCR methods for epidemiological typing of Francisella tularensis: repetitive extragenic palindromic element PCR (REP-PCR), enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus sequence PCR (ERIC-PCR), and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assay with both M13 and T3-T7 primers. The analysis was performed with 40 strains of F. tularensis isolated from hares, humans, ticks, and a vole. On the basis of the combination of REP, ERIC, and RAPD fingerprints, F. tularensis strains were divided into 17 genetic groups (designated A to Q), and one Francisella novicida strain was classified in group R. The F. novicida strain is of special concern, since previous genetic methods have been unable to clearly distinguish between F. tularensis and F. novicida. The F. tularensis isolates recovered from hares were included in groups A to J, M, and P; those recovered from humans were included in groups A, D, G, J, L, O, and N; those isolated from ticks were included in groups B and Q; and that recovered from a vole was in group K. The diversities calculated for the 40 F. tularensis isolates, according to Simpson's index, were 0.14 for REP-PCR, 0.52 for ERIC-PCR, 0.39 for RAPD assay with the M13 primer (RAPD/M13-PCR), and 0.65 for RAPD/T3-T7-PCR, and the diversity increased up to 0.90 when ERIC-PCR, RAPD/M13-PCR, and RAPD/T3-T7-PCR were combined. Our results suggest that although limited genetic heterogeneity among F. tularensis strains was observed, this small variation is enough to validate the PCR methods used in this study and their combinations, because they can provide safe, useful, and rapid tools for the typing of F. tularensis.
提供机构:
American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
5,000+
优质数据集
54 个
任务类型
进入经典数据集
二维码
社区交流群

面向社区/商业的数据集话题

二维码
科研交流群

面向高校/科研机构的开源数据集话题

数据驱动未来

携手共赢发展

商业合作