Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments

A multicenter study

Alex Van Belkum, Willem Van Leeuwen, Mary Elizabeth Kaufmann, Barry Cookson, Françoise Forey, Jerome Etienne, Richard V. Goering, Fred Tenover, Christine Steward, Frances O'Brien, Warren Grubb, Panayotis Tassios, Nicholas Legakis, Anne Morvan, Névine El Solh, Raf De Ryck, Marc Struelens, Saara Salmenlinna, Jaana Vuopio-Varkila, Mirjam Kooistra & 3 others Adriaan Talens, Wolfgang Witte, Henri Verbrugh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

161 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Twenty well-characterized isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were used to study the optimal resolution and interlaboratory reproducibility of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of DNA macrorestriction fragments. Five identical isolates (one PFGE type), 5 isolates that produced related PFGE subtypes, and 10 isolates with unique PFGE patterns were analyzed blindly in 12 different laboratories by in-house protocols. In several laboratories a standardized PFGE protocol with a commercial kit was applied successfully as well. Eight of the centers correctly identified the genetic homogeneity of the identical isolates by both the in-house and standard protocols. Four of 12 laboratories failed to produce interpretable data by the standardized protocol, due to technical problems (primarily plug preparation). With the five related isolates, five of eight participants identified the same subtype interrelationships with both in-house and standard protocols. However, two participants identified multiple strain types in this group or classified some of the isolates as unrelated isolates rather than as subtypes. The remaining laboratory failed to distinguish differences between some of the related isolates by utilizing both the in-house and standardized protocols. There were large differences in the relative genome lengths of the isolates as calculated on the basis of the gel pictures. By visual inspection, the numbers of restriction fragments and overall banding pattern similarity in the three groups of isolates showed interlaboratory concordance, but centralized computer analysis of data from four laboratories yielded percent similarity values of only 85% for the group of identical isolates. The differences between the data sets obtained with in-house and standardized protocols could be the experimental parameters which differed with respect to the brand of equipment used, imaging software, running time (20 to 48 h), and pulsing conditions. In conclusion, it appears that the standardization of PFGE depends on controlling a variety of experimental intricacies, as is the case with other bacterial typing procedures.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1653-1659
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Microbiology
Volume36
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1998

Fingerprint

Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis
Reproducibility of Results
Multicenter Studies
Staphylococcus aureus
Bacterial Typing Techniques
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Software
Gels
Genome
Equipment and Supplies
DNA

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Microbiology

Cite this

Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments : A multicenter study. / Van Belkum, Alex; Van Leeuwen, Willem; Kaufmann, Mary Elizabeth; Cookson, Barry; Forey, Françoise; Etienne, Jerome; Goering, Richard V.; Tenover, Fred; Steward, Christine; O'Brien, Frances; Grubb, Warren; Tassios, Panayotis; Legakis, Nicholas; Morvan, Anne; El Solh, Névine; De Ryck, Raf; Struelens, Marc; Salmenlinna, Saara; Vuopio-Varkila, Jaana; Kooistra, Mirjam; Talens, Adriaan; Witte, Wolfgang; Verbrugh, Henri.

In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Vol. 36, No. 6, 06.1998, p. 1653-1659.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Van Belkum, A, Van Leeuwen, W, Kaufmann, ME, Cookson, B, Forey, F, Etienne, J, Goering, RV, Tenover, F, Steward, C, O'Brien, F, Grubb, W, Tassios, P, Legakis, N, Morvan, A, El Solh, N, De Ryck, R, Struelens, M, Salmenlinna, S, Vuopio-Varkila, J, Kooistra, M, Talens, A, Witte, W & Verbrugh, H 1998, 'Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments: A multicenter study', Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1653-1659.
Van Belkum, Alex ; Van Leeuwen, Willem ; Kaufmann, Mary Elizabeth ; Cookson, Barry ; Forey, Françoise ; Etienne, Jerome ; Goering, Richard V. ; Tenover, Fred ; Steward, Christine ; O'Brien, Frances ; Grubb, Warren ; Tassios, Panayotis ; Legakis, Nicholas ; Morvan, Anne ; El Solh, Névine ; De Ryck, Raf ; Struelens, Marc ; Salmenlinna, Saara ; Vuopio-Varkila, Jaana ; Kooistra, Mirjam ; Talens, Adriaan ; Witte, Wolfgang ; Verbrugh, Henri. / Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments : A multicenter study. In: Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 1998 ; Vol. 36, No. 6. pp. 1653-1659.
@article{1708c5c4c3534953817c768359b7630c,
title = "Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments: A multicenter study",
abstract = "Twenty well-characterized isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were used to study the optimal resolution and interlaboratory reproducibility of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of DNA macrorestriction fragments. Five identical isolates (one PFGE type), 5 isolates that produced related PFGE subtypes, and 10 isolates with unique PFGE patterns were analyzed blindly in 12 different laboratories by in-house protocols. In several laboratories a standardized PFGE protocol with a commercial kit was applied successfully as well. Eight of the centers correctly identified the genetic homogeneity of the identical isolates by both the in-house and standard protocols. Four of 12 laboratories failed to produce interpretable data by the standardized protocol, due to technical problems (primarily plug preparation). With the five related isolates, five of eight participants identified the same subtype interrelationships with both in-house and standard protocols. However, two participants identified multiple strain types in this group or classified some of the isolates as unrelated isolates rather than as subtypes. The remaining laboratory failed to distinguish differences between some of the related isolates by utilizing both the in-house and standardized protocols. There were large differences in the relative genome lengths of the isolates as calculated on the basis of the gel pictures. By visual inspection, the numbers of restriction fragments and overall banding pattern similarity in the three groups of isolates showed interlaboratory concordance, but centralized computer analysis of data from four laboratories yielded percent similarity values of only 85{\%} for the group of identical isolates. The differences between the data sets obtained with in-house and standardized protocols could be the experimental parameters which differed with respect to the brand of equipment used, imaging software, running time (20 to 48 h), and pulsing conditions. In conclusion, it appears that the standardization of PFGE depends on controlling a variety of experimental intricacies, as is the case with other bacterial typing procedures.",
author = "{Van Belkum}, Alex and {Van Leeuwen}, Willem and Kaufmann, {Mary Elizabeth} and Barry Cookson and Fran{\cc}oise Forey and Jerome Etienne and Goering, {Richard V.} and Fred Tenover and Christine Steward and Frances O'Brien and Warren Grubb and Panayotis Tassios and Nicholas Legakis and Anne Morvan and {El Solh}, N{\'e}vine and {De Ryck}, Raf and Marc Struelens and Saara Salmenlinna and Jaana Vuopio-Varkila and Mirjam Kooistra and Adriaan Talens and Wolfgang Witte and Henri Verbrugh",
year = "1998",
month = "6",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "1653--1659",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Microbiology",
issn = "0095-1137",
publisher = "American Society for Microbiology",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of resolution and intercenter reproducibility of results of genotyping Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of SmaI macrorestriction fragments

T2 - A multicenter study

AU - Van Belkum, Alex

AU - Van Leeuwen, Willem

AU - Kaufmann, Mary Elizabeth

AU - Cookson, Barry

AU - Forey, Françoise

AU - Etienne, Jerome

AU - Goering, Richard V.

AU - Tenover, Fred

AU - Steward, Christine

AU - O'Brien, Frances

AU - Grubb, Warren

AU - Tassios, Panayotis

AU - Legakis, Nicholas

AU - Morvan, Anne

AU - El Solh, Névine

AU - De Ryck, Raf

AU - Struelens, Marc

AU - Salmenlinna, Saara

AU - Vuopio-Varkila, Jaana

AU - Kooistra, Mirjam

AU - Talens, Adriaan

AU - Witte, Wolfgang

AU - Verbrugh, Henri

PY - 1998/6

Y1 - 1998/6

N2 - Twenty well-characterized isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were used to study the optimal resolution and interlaboratory reproducibility of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of DNA macrorestriction fragments. Five identical isolates (one PFGE type), 5 isolates that produced related PFGE subtypes, and 10 isolates with unique PFGE patterns were analyzed blindly in 12 different laboratories by in-house protocols. In several laboratories a standardized PFGE protocol with a commercial kit was applied successfully as well. Eight of the centers correctly identified the genetic homogeneity of the identical isolates by both the in-house and standard protocols. Four of 12 laboratories failed to produce interpretable data by the standardized protocol, due to technical problems (primarily plug preparation). With the five related isolates, five of eight participants identified the same subtype interrelationships with both in-house and standard protocols. However, two participants identified multiple strain types in this group or classified some of the isolates as unrelated isolates rather than as subtypes. The remaining laboratory failed to distinguish differences between some of the related isolates by utilizing both the in-house and standardized protocols. There were large differences in the relative genome lengths of the isolates as calculated on the basis of the gel pictures. By visual inspection, the numbers of restriction fragments and overall banding pattern similarity in the three groups of isolates showed interlaboratory concordance, but centralized computer analysis of data from four laboratories yielded percent similarity values of only 85% for the group of identical isolates. The differences between the data sets obtained with in-house and standardized protocols could be the experimental parameters which differed with respect to the brand of equipment used, imaging software, running time (20 to 48 h), and pulsing conditions. In conclusion, it appears that the standardization of PFGE depends on controlling a variety of experimental intricacies, as is the case with other bacterial typing procedures.

AB - Twenty well-characterized isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were used to study the optimal resolution and interlaboratory reproducibility of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) of DNA macrorestriction fragments. Five identical isolates (one PFGE type), 5 isolates that produced related PFGE subtypes, and 10 isolates with unique PFGE patterns were analyzed blindly in 12 different laboratories by in-house protocols. In several laboratories a standardized PFGE protocol with a commercial kit was applied successfully as well. Eight of the centers correctly identified the genetic homogeneity of the identical isolates by both the in-house and standard protocols. Four of 12 laboratories failed to produce interpretable data by the standardized protocol, due to technical problems (primarily plug preparation). With the five related isolates, five of eight participants identified the same subtype interrelationships with both in-house and standard protocols. However, two participants identified multiple strain types in this group or classified some of the isolates as unrelated isolates rather than as subtypes. The remaining laboratory failed to distinguish differences between some of the related isolates by utilizing both the in-house and standardized protocols. There were large differences in the relative genome lengths of the isolates as calculated on the basis of the gel pictures. By visual inspection, the numbers of restriction fragments and overall banding pattern similarity in the three groups of isolates showed interlaboratory concordance, but centralized computer analysis of data from four laboratories yielded percent similarity values of only 85% for the group of identical isolates. The differences between the data sets obtained with in-house and standardized protocols could be the experimental parameters which differed with respect to the brand of equipment used, imaging software, running time (20 to 48 h), and pulsing conditions. In conclusion, it appears that the standardization of PFGE depends on controlling a variety of experimental intricacies, as is the case with other bacterial typing procedures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031968574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031968574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 1653

EP - 1659

JO - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Microbiology

SN - 0095-1137

IS - 6

ER -