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

doi:10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002

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

Medicine, Infectious Diseases Division

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

20 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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1858-1861
Number of pages	4
Journal	Journal of clinical microbiology
Volume	40
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002
State	Published - 2002

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Microbiology (medical)

Access to Document

10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002

Cite this

Price, C. S., Huynh, H., Paule, S., Hollis, R. J., Noskin, G. A., Pfaller, M. A., & Peterson, L. R. (2002). Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates. Journal of clinical microbiology, 40(5), 1858-1861. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002

@article{373c6c19cead4c2386f7afe616b98bd8,

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

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.",

author = "Price, {Connie S.} and Holly Huynh and Suzanne Paule and Hollis, {Richard J.} and Noskin, {Gary A.} and Pfaller, {Michael A.} and Peterson, {Lance R.}",

year = "2002",

doi = "10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "40",

pages = "1858--1861",

journal = "Journal of clinical microbiology",

issn = "0095-1137",

publisher = "American Society for Microbiology",

number = "5",

}

Price, CS, Huynh, H, Paule, S, Hollis, RJ, Noskin, GA, Pfaller, MA & Peterson, LR 2002, 'Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates', Journal of clinical microbiology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1858-1861. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002

Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates. / Price, Connie S.; Huynh, Holly; Paule, Suzanne et al.
In: Journal of clinical microbiology, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2002, p. 1858-1861.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates

AU - Price, Connie S.

AU - Huynh, Holly

AU - Paule, Suzanne

AU - Hollis, Richard J.

AU - Noskin, Gary A.

AU - Pfaller, Michael A.

AU - Peterson, Lance R.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036246209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036246209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002

DO - 10.1128/JCM.40.5.1858-1861.2002

M3 - Article

C2 - 11980978

AN - SCOPUS:0036246209

SN - 0095-1137

VL - 40

SP - 1858

EP - 1861

JO - Journal of clinical microbiology

JF - Journal of clinical microbiology

IS - 5

ER -

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

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this