TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical use comparison of a semiautomated PCR with fluorescent ribotyping for typing of Clostridium difficile
AU - Thabit, Abrar K.
AU - Alam, M. Jahangir
AU - Burnham, Carey Ann D.
AU - Nicolau, David P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Molecular typing of Clostridium difficile is performed to assess strain relatedness or place strains within an epidemiological context. Different C. difficile ribotyping systems are available. However, a common strain library does not exist. We aimed to compare ribotyping results of 29 clinical C. difficile isolates by two methods: semiautomated PCR-ribotyping and fluorescent PCR-ribotyping. For certain ribotypes (n = 16/29; 55.2 %), the inter-laboratory reproducibility was consistent among multiple samples from individual subjects, while 54.8 % (n = 14/29) were discordant. Additionally, 11/29 ribotypes (38 %) and 12/29 ribotypes (41 %) did not match with known reference strains in the semiautomated PCR-fluorescent ribotyping systems’ libraries, respectively. The identification of 027 ribotype by both systems was consistent for 75 % of the isolates. Discriminatory indices for the semiautomated PCR-ribotyping and fluorescent PCR-ribotyping systems are 0.906 and 0.886, respectively. Although ribotyping provides important epidemiologic insights, the lack of a common strain library makes interpretation of results using different ribotyping protocols difficult.
AB - Molecular typing of Clostridium difficile is performed to assess strain relatedness or place strains within an epidemiological context. Different C. difficile ribotyping systems are available. However, a common strain library does not exist. We aimed to compare ribotyping results of 29 clinical C. difficile isolates by two methods: semiautomated PCR-ribotyping and fluorescent PCR-ribotyping. For certain ribotypes (n = 16/29; 55.2 %), the inter-laboratory reproducibility was consistent among multiple samples from individual subjects, while 54.8 % (n = 14/29) were discordant. Additionally, 11/29 ribotypes (38 %) and 12/29 ribotypes (41 %) did not match with known reference strains in the semiautomated PCR-fluorescent ribotyping systems’ libraries, respectively. The identification of 027 ribotype by both systems was consistent for 75 % of the isolates. Discriminatory indices for the semiautomated PCR-ribotyping and fluorescent PCR-ribotyping systems are 0.906 and 0.886, respectively. Although ribotyping provides important epidemiologic insights, the lack of a common strain library makes interpretation of results using different ribotyping protocols difficult.
KW - Clostridium difficile
KW - Fluorescent PCR
KW - PCR
KW - Ribotype
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84991071184
U2 - 10.1007/s00203-016-1305-6
DO - 10.1007/s00203-016-1305-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 27730251
AN - SCOPUS:84991071184
SN - 0302-8933
VL - 199
SP - 317
EP - 323
JO - Archives of Microbiology
JF - Archives of Microbiology
IS - 2
ER -