1887

Abstract

Forty-seven Penner heat-stable (HS) serotype reference strains for jejuni and 47 serologically non-typable strains were examined by pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) DNA restriction analysis. The I and I digest profiles were compared by numerical analysis. Most strains grouped differently in the two analyses but strain lineages were inferred where the two agreed. Genetic relationships between reference strains in the cross-reacting HS4 complex were examined. Three clonal lines were evident and comprised: (i) HS4, HS13 and HS16; (ii) HS50 and HS65; (iii) HS43. The majority of those expressing HS antigens not recognised by currently available antisera had >50% PFGE DNA digest similarity to one or more Penner scheme reference strain(s) and so did not necessarily represent distinct genetic lineages. PFGE analysis provided a high level of discrimination amongst strains of but overall similarity estimates for defining types must be based on the analysis of more than one restriction pattern.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-46-2-157
1997-02-01
2022-11-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/46/2/medmicro-46-2-157.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-46-2-157&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Tenover F. C., Arbeit R. D., Goering R. V. Interpreting chromosomal DNA restriction patterns produced by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis: criteria for bacterial strain typing. J Clin Microbiol 1995; 33:2233–2239
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gibson J. R., Fitzgerald C., Owen R. J. Comparison of PFGE, ribotyping and phage-typing in the epidemiological analysis of Campylobacter jejuni serotype HS2 infections. Epidemiol Infect 1995; 115:215–225
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Suzuki Y., Ishihara M., Saito M., Ishikawa N., Yokochi T. Discrimination by means of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis between strains of Campylobacter jejuni Lior type 4 derived from sporadic cases and from outbreaks of infection. J Infect 1994; 29:183–187
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Rennie R. P., Strong D., Taylor D. E., Salama S. M., Davidson C., Tabor H. Campylobacter fetus diarrhea in a Hutterite colony: epidemiological observations and typing of the causative organism. J Clin Microbiol 1994; 32:721–724
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Salama S. M., Tabor M., Richter M., Taylor D. E. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for epidemiologic studies of Campylobacter hyointestinalis isolates. J Clin Microbiol 1992; 30:1982–1984
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Healing T. D., Greenwood M. H., Pearson A. D. Campylobacters and enteritis. Rev Med Microbiol 1992; 3:159–167
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cowden J. Campylobacter: epidemiological paradoxes. The vehicles for most cases of infection remain unknown. BMJ 1992; 305:132–133
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Owen R. J., Sutherland K., Fitzgerald C., Gibson J., Borman P., Stanley J. Molecular subtyping scheme for serotypes HS1 and HS4 of Campylobacter jejuni . J Clin Microbiol 1995; 33:872–877
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Owen R. J., Gibson J. R. Update on epidemiological typing of Campylobacter . PHLS Microbiol Dig 1995; 12:2–6
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Penner J. L., Hennessy J. N. Passive hemagglutination technique for serotyping Campylobacter fetus subsp. jejuni on the basis of soluble heat-stable antigens. J Clin Microbiol 1980; 12:732–737
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibson J. R., Sutherland K., Owen R. J. Inhibition of DNAse activity in PFGE analysis of DNA from Campylobacter jejuni . Lett Appl Microbiol 1994; 19:357–358
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Preston M. A., Penner J. L. Characterization of cross-reacting serotypes of Campylobacter jejuni . Can J Microbiol 1989; 35:265–273
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mills S. D., Kuzniar B., Shames B., Kurjanczyk L. A., Penner J. L. Variation of the O antigen of Campylobacter jejuni in vivo . J Med Microbiol 1992; 36:215–219
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Patton C. M., Waschsmuth K. Typing schemes: are current methods useful?. In Nachamkin I., Blaser M. J., Tompkins L. S. (eds) Campylobacter jejuni; current status and future trends Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1992110–128
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Patton C. M., Barrett T. J., Morris G. K. Comparison of the Penner and Lior methods for serotyping Campylobacter spp. J Clin Microbiol 1985; 22:558–565
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ogg J. E., Chang W. Phage conversion of serotypes in Vibrio fetus . Am J Vet Res 1972; 33:1023–1029
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Le Minor L., Rohde R., Charle-Marsaines C., Coynault C. [Antigenic similarities of certain Salmonella O:54 serotypes with other O groups of the Kaufmann-White scheme.] Nouvelles observations sur les parentés antigéniques de certains sérotypes de Salmonella du groupe O:54 avec d’autres groupes O du schéma de Kauffmann-White. Ann Microbiol (Paris) 1973; 124:451–461
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-46-2-157
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-46-2-157
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error