Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T00:56:08.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE), ribotyping, restriction enzyme analysis (REA) and phage typing for typing of Listeria monocytogenes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

B. Nørrung  and
P. Gerner-Smith
B. Nørrung
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Bülowsvej 13, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
P. Gerner-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Statens Seruminstitut, Artillerivej 5, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The discriminatory power of four methods for typing of Listeria monocytogenes was compared. The four methods were multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE), ribotyping, restriction enzyme analysis (REA), and a newly developed Danish phage typing system. Ninety-nine human clinical, food and slaughterhouse isolates of Listeria monocytogenes were typed by each method. The most discriminatory single typing method was phage typing with an overall discriminatory index (DI) of 0·88 followed by REA, MEE and ribotyping with DI-values at 0·87, 0·83 and 0·79 respectively. Considering strains from each of the two predominant O-serotypes alone, serotype 1 was best discriminated by the molecular typing methods, in particular REA, which showed a DI of 0·92. The serotype 4 strains were best discriminated by phage typing (DI = 0·78). If two or more typing methods were combined, the combination of REA and MEE were found to be the most discriminatory combination. The DI values were 0·96, 0·74 and 0·90 for serotype 1, 4, and both combined, respectively. Phage typing is a rapid and inexpensive typing method but not as reproducible as the molecular typing methods. It is the most suitable method for mass screening. In situations where results are required to be highly reliable, i.e. when studying the relationships between only a few strains, a single or a combination of molecular typing methods should be used, preferable MEE and REA.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 71 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

1.Nocera, D, Bannerman, E, Rocourt, J, Jaton-Ogay, K, Bille, J. Characterization by DNA restriction endonuclease analysis of Listeria monocytogenes strains related to the Swiss epidemic of listeriosis. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28: 2259–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bibb, WF, Gellin, BG, Weaver, R, et al. Analysis of clinical and foodborne isolates of Listeria monocytogenes in United States by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis and application of the method to epidemiological investigations. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56: 2133–41.Google Scholar
3.Hunter, PR, Gaston, MA. Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of a typing systems: an application of Simpson’s index of diversity. J Clin Microbiol 1988; 26: 2465–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Farber, JM, Peterkin, PI. Listeria monocytogenes, a food-borne pathogen. Microbiol Rev 1991; 55: 476–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Nørrung, B. Characterisation of Danish isolates of Listeria monocytogenes by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis. Int J Food Microbiol 1992; 15: 51–9.Google Scholar
6.Selander, RK, Caugant, DA, Ochman, H, Musser, JM, Gilmour, MN, Whittam, TS. Methods of multilocus enzyme electrophoresis for bacterial population genetics and systematics. Appl Environ Microbiol 1986; 51: 873–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Harris, H, Hopkinson, DA. Handbook of enzyme electrophoresis in human genetics. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1976.Google Scholar
8.Gerner-Smidt, P, Rosdahl, VT. Frederiksen, W. A new Danish Listeria monocytogenes phage typing system. APMIS. In press.Google Scholar
9.Gerner-Smidt, P. Ribotyping of the Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-Acinetobacter baumannii complex. J Clin Microbiol. In press.Google Scholar
10.Wesley, IV, Ashton, F. Restriction enzyme analysis of Listeria monocytogenes strains associated with food-borne epidemics. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991; 57: 969–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Gaston, MA, Hunter, PR. Efficient selection of tests for bacteriological typing schemes. J Clin Pathol 1989; 42: 763–6.Google Scholar