Simultaneous detection and strain differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for diagnosis and epidemiology

J Kamerbeek, L Schouls, A Kolk, M van Agterveld, D van Soolingen, S Kuijper, A Bunschoten, H Molhuizen, R Shaw, M Goyal, J van Embden, J Kamerbeek, L Schouls, A Kolk, M van Agterveld, D van Soolingen, S Kuijper, A Bunschoten, H Molhuizen, R Shaw, M Goyal, J van Embden

Abstract

Widespread use of DNA restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) to differentiate strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to monitor the transmission of tuberculosis has been hampered by the need to culture this slow-growing organism and by the level of technical sophistication needed for RFLP typing. We have developed a simple method which allows simultaneous detection and typing of M. tuberculosis in clinical specimens and reduces the time between suspicion of the disease and typing from 1 or several months to 1 or 3 days. The method is based on polymorphism of the chromosomal DR locus, which contains a variable number of short direct repeats interspersed with nonrepetitive spacers. The method is referred to as spacer oligotyping or "spoligotyping" because it is based on strain-dependent hybridization patterns of in vitro-amplified DNA with multiple spacer oligonucleotides. Most of the clinical isolates tested showed unique hybridization patterns, whereas outbreak strains shared the same spoligotype. The types obtained from direct examination of clinical samples were identical to those obtained by using DNA from cultured M. tuberculosis. This novel preliminary study shows that the novel method may be a useful tool for rapid disclosure of linked outbreak cases in a community, in hospitals, or in other institutions and for monitoring of transmission of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Unexpectedly, spoligotyping was found to differentiate M. bovis from M. tuberculosis, a distinction which is often difficult to make by traditional methods.

References

    1. Infect Immun. 1991 Aug;59(8):2695-705
    1. Tuber Lung Dis. 1995 Dec;76(6):550-4
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1991 Nov;29(11):2578-86
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Apr;30(4):942-6
    1. JAMA. 1992 May 20;267(19):2632-4
    1. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 4;326(23):1514-21
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Aug 1;117(3):177-83
    1. JAMA. 1992 Sep 9;268(10):1280-6
    1. Science. 1992 Aug 21;257(5073):1055-64
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1992 Oct;30(10):2567-75
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Feb;31(2):406-9
    1. J Infect Dis. 1993 Apr;167(4):975-8
    1. N Engl J Med. 1993 Apr 22;328(16):1137-44
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1993 May;31(5):1143-7
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Aug;31(8):1987-95
    1. Lancet. 1993 Oct 2;342(8875):841-4
    1. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 30;329(27):2036
    1. J Infect Dis. 1994 Jan;169(1):189-92
    1. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jun 16;330(24):1703-9
    1. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jun 16;330(24):1710-6
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Mar;32(3):672-8
    1. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1994 Jun 1;119(1-2):19-25
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 May;32(5):1318-21
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1994 Jun;86(6):749-51
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 Jun;32(6):1542-6
    1. Mol Microbiol. 1993 Dec;10(5):1057-65
    1. Biotechnology (N Y). 1994 Dec;12(13):1335-7
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 May;33(5):1383-4
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Dec;33(12):3234-8
    1. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jan 23;326(4):231-5

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다