IS6110 restriction fragment length polymorphism typing of clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Madras, South India
IS6110 restriction fragment length polymorphism typing of clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Madras, South India
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0962-8479(95)90533-2
复制
发表时间：
1995-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Narayanan, PR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Das, S;Paramasivan, CN;Narayanan, PR
设定：印度马德拉斯目的地：探讨标准化IS 6110/PvuII脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）指纹限制性片段长度多态性（RFLP）分型方法在区分结核分枝杆菌分离株中的实用性，并评估其区分复发率与再感染率的潜力。设计：为了评估人群中的RFLP异质性，从98例结核病患者的痰中获得的初始分离株在短期化疗期间的诊断和随访，存储并比较。为了评估初始分离株的RFLP类型与成功完成化疗后（复发期间或作为分离的阳性培养物）获得的RFLP类型之间的差异频率，对包括62对这样的分离株的124个分离株进行编码，并在盲法和解码后进行比较。尽管存在各种各样的DNA带型（指纹），但39例（40%）患者的分离株显示出IS 6110的单拷贝。当排除具有零条带或单一条带的分离株时，仅15对编码的初始和随访分离株可被鉴定为具有相同的条带模式。然而，在解码后，在一项包括所有分离株的回顾性分析中，那些细菌学上定义患者复发的分离株与初始分离株（30次比较中的19次）比分离阳性培养物获得的分离株（32次比较中的3次）更经常显示RFLP类型同一性（χ 2 P < 0.001）。化疗药物的敏感性，过氧化氢酶活性和耐噻吩-2-羧酸酰肼的测试是最小的值之间的区别isolations.Conclusions：尽管高频率的单带和零带的分离株在这个人群中，与IS 6110的RFLP分型的歧视权力是足够高的临床和流行病学研究是有用的。
Setting: Madras, India.Objective: To explore the utility of a standardized IS6110/PvuII deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) typing method for distinguishing between isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and to assess the potential for distinguishing between relapse versus reinfection rates.Design: To assess RFLP heterogeneity in the population, initial isolates, obtained from the sputum of tuberculous 98 patients on diagnosis and follow-up during short-course chemotherapy, were stored and compared. To assess the frequency of disparity between the RFLP type of the initial isolate and one obtained after successful completion of chemotherapy, either during relapse or as an isolated positive culture, 124 isolates comprising 62 such pairs were coded and compared both blind and after decoding.Results: Although a wide variety of DNA band patterns (fingerprints) was present, the isolates from 39 (40%) of the patients showed a single copy of IS6110. Only 15 pairs of coded initial and follow-up isolates could be identified as having the same band pattern when isolates with zero or single bands were excluded. Nevertheless, after decoding, in a retrospective analysis that included all isolates, those isolates that bacteriologically defined a patient's relapse more often showed RFLP type identity with the initial isolate (19 of 30 comparisons) than did isolates that were obtained as isolated positive cultures (3 of 32 comparisons) (chi(2) P < 0.001). Tests of sensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs, catalase activity and resistance to thiophene-2-carboxylic acid hydrazide were of minimal value in discriminating between isolates.Conclusions: Despite the high frequency of single- and zero-band isolates in this population, the discriminatory power of RFLP typing with IS6110 is sufficiently high to be useful for clinical and epidemiological studies.