Molecular subtyping of vancomycin resistant enterococcus: A comparison of two molecular methods
Özet
Introduction: Arbitrarily Primed-Polymerase Chain Reaction (AP-PCR) and Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) are widely used genotyping methods for investigating outbreaks of infections. The aim of this research is to compare AP-PCR with PFGE, which is known as the gold standard method, and to determine if AP-PCR is suitable for use in outbreaks.Materials and methods: Between 2001 and 2009, 664 isolated vancomycin resistant enterococcus (VRE) strains were determined at the Bacteriology Laboratory, Department of Medical Microbiology. During nine years study 5 peak periods were identified. In each peak period of 3 months, 83 VRE strains were selected from the 664 for this research. For all isolates a comparison of AP-PCR and PFGE using 83 VRE strains was performed.Results: Enterococcus faecium was found to be the dominant species in all VRE isolated from hospitalized patients. 83 strains of E. faecium were included in the study, which were isolated from 5 different possible epidemic periods over 9 years. 15 different clonal strains were collected using the AP-PCR method and 11 using PFGE.Conclusion: PFGE was found to be repeatable and had a better separation power than AP-PCR. AP-PCR though is a simpler,cheaper and faster method and can be used for VRE epidemics as an alternative method. In future epidemiological outbreaks the comparative molecular methods are more reliable than a single method.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Tam Kayıt
| Alan | Değer | Dil |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Karakecili, Faruk | |
| dc.contributor.author | Cilo, Burcu Dalyan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Karagoz, Alper | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jefferies, Meryem | |
| dc.contributor.author | Cikman, Aytekin | |
| dc.contributor.author | Akalin, Halis | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ozakin, Cuneyt | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-10-18T20:29:58.497643356Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-10-18T20:29:58.497643356Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Introduction: Arbitrarily Primed-Polymerase Chain Reaction (AP-PCR) and Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) are widely used genotyping methods for investigating outbreaks of infections. The aim of this research is to compare AP-PCR with PFGE, which is known as the gold standard method, and to determine if AP-PCR is suitable for use in outbreaks.Materials and methods: Between 2001 and 2009, 664 isolated vancomycin resistant enterococcus (VRE) strains were determined at the Bacteriology Laboratory, Department of Medical Microbiology. During nine years study 5 peak periods were identified. In each peak period of 3 months, 83 VRE strains were selected from the 664 for this research. For all isolates a comparison of AP-PCR and PFGE using 83 VRE strains was performed.Results: Enterococcus faecium was found to be the dominant species in all VRE isolated from hospitalized patients. 83 strains of E. faecium were included in the study, which were isolated from 5 different possible epidemic periods over 9 years. 15 different clonal strains were collected using the AP-PCR method and 11 using PFGE.Conclusion: PFGE was found to be repeatable and had a better separation power than AP-PCR. AP-PCR though is a simpler,cheaper and faster method and can be used for VRE epidemics as an alternative method. In future epidemiological outbreaks the comparative molecular methods are more reliable than a single method. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.19193/0393-6384_2016_6_166 | |
| dc.identifier.endpage | 1803 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0393-6384 | |
| dc.identifier.issue | 6 | |
| dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-85014314085 | |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 1797 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/15187 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 32 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | A. CARBONE Editore | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Acta Medica Mediterranea | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.subject | AP-PCR | |
| dc.subject | Molecular methods | |
| dc.subject | PFGE | |
| dc.subject | VRE | |
| dc.subject | teicoplanin | |
| dc.subject | vancomycin | |
| dc.subject | antibiotic resistance | |
| dc.subject | arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction | |
| dc.subject | Article | |
| dc.subject | bacterial genome | |
| dc.subject | bacterial strain | |
| dc.subject | bacterium isolate | |
| dc.subject | bacterium isolation | |
| dc.subject | controlled study | |
| dc.subject | enterococcal infection | |
| dc.subject | Enterococcus faecium | |
| dc.subject | epidemic | |
| dc.subject | genotype | |
| dc.subject | hospital patient | |
| dc.subject | human | |
| dc.subject | intermethod comparison | |
| dc.subject | minimum inhibitory concentration | |
| dc.subject | nonhuman | |
| dc.subject | polymerase chain reaction | |
| dc.subject | pulsed field gel electrophoresis | |
| dc.subject | vancomycin resistant Enterococcus | |
| dc.title | Molecular subtyping of vancomycin resistant enterococcus: A comparison of two molecular methods | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| rdl.citation.scopus | 2 | |
| rdl.source.index | SCOPUS |
