Development and evaluation of double locus sequence typing for molecular epidemiological investigations of Clostridium difficile.
Fiche du document
2016
- doi: 10.1007/s10096-015-2525-4
- issn: 0934-9723
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s10096-015-2525-4
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/26581425
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1435-4373
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_C4315A6F47A86
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
Instruction and study--Methods Instruction and study--MethodsCiter ce document
M. Stojanov et al., « Development and evaluation of double locus sequence typing for molecular epidemiological investigations of Clostridium difficile. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1007/s10096-015-2525-4
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Despite the development of novel typing methods based on whole genome sequencing, most laboratories still rely on classical molecular methods for outbreak investigation or surveillance. Reference methods for Clostridium difficile include ribotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which are band-comparing methods often difficult to establish and which require reference strain collections. Here, we present the double locus sequence typing (DLST) scheme as a tool to analyse C. difficile isolates. Using a collection of clinical C. difficile isolates recovered during a 1-year period, we evaluated the performance of DLST and compared the results to multilocus sequence typing (MLST), a sequence-based method that has been used to study the structure of bacterial populations and highlight major clones. DLST had a higher discriminatory power compared to MLST (Simpson's index of diversity of 0.979 versus 0.965) and successfully identified all isolates of the study (100 % typeability). Previous studies showed that the discriminatory power of ribotyping was comparable to that of MLST; thus, DLST might be more discriminatory than ribotyping. DLST is easy to establish and provides several advantages, including absence of DNA extraction [polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is performed on colonies], no specific instrumentation, low cost and unambiguous definition of types. Moreover, the implementation of a DLST typing scheme on an Internet database, such as that previously done for Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ( http://www.dlst.org ), will allow users to easily obtain the DLST type by submitting directly sequencing files and will avoid problems associated with multiple databases.