Comparison of multiple typing methods for Aspergillus fumigatus

22Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

As part of studies on the spread of infections, risk factors and prevention, several typing methods were developed to investigate the epidemiology of Aspergillus fumigatus. In the present study, 52 clinical isolates of A. fumigatus from 12 airway specimens from patients with invasive aspergillosis (hospitalized in three different centres) were characterized by short tandem repeat (STR) typing and multilocus sequence typing (MLST). These isolates were previously typed by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), sequence-specific DNA polymorphism (SSDP), microsatellite polymorphism (MSP) and multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE). STR typing identified 30 genotypes and, for most patients, all isolates were grouped in one cluster of the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean dendrogram. Using MLST, 16 genotypes were identified among 50 isolates, while two isolates appeared untypeable. RAPD, MSP, SSDP and MLEE allowed identification of eight, 14, nine and eight genotypes, respectively. Combining the results of these methods led to the delineation of 25 genotypes and a similar clustering pattern as with STR typing. In general, STR typing led to similar results to the previous combination of RAPD, SSDP, MSP and MLEE, but had a higher resolution, whereas MLST was less discriminatory and resulted in a totally different clustering pattern. Therefore, this study suggests the use of STR typing for research concerning the local epidemiology of A. fumigatus, which requires a high discriminatory power. © 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vanhee, L. M. E., Symoens, F., Jacobsen, M. D., Nelis, H. J., & Coenye, T. (2009). Comparison of multiple typing methods for Aspergillus fumigatus. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 15(7), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.02844.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free