Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates

Connie S. Price*, Holly Huynh, Suzanne Paule, Richard J. Hollis, Gary A. Noskin, Michael A. Pfaller, Lance R. Peterson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations

Abstract

The RiboPrinter Microbial Characterization System was compared with pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), restriction endonuclease analysis (REA), and epidemiological data for typing 45 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) isolates. In 21 clinically related isolates, 90 to 100% were similar by PFGE and REA, but only 57% were similar by the RiboPrinter. In another eight clinically related isolates, three isolates similar by PFGE and REA were all unique by the RiboPrinter. In contrast, in 16 clinically unrelated isolates, the predominant RiboPrinter ribotype represented 50% of the strains, while the largest PFGE and REA clones represented less than 19% of the strains. These data suggest that the RiboPrinter is not reliable for VRE investigation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1858-1861
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of clinical microbiology
Volume40
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2002

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this