Comparison of an automated ribotyping system to restriction endonuclease analysis and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for differentiating vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium isolates.
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.
Price
Connie S
CS
Department of Pathology, Northwestern University and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. CSPrice@northwestern.edu
Huynh
Holly
H
Paule
Suzanne
S
Hollis
Richard J
RJ
Noskin
Gary A
GA
Pfaller
Michael A
MA
Peterson
Lance R
LR
D001331:Automation / Q000379:methods; D016521:Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field / Q000379:methods; D016984:Enterococcus faecium / Q000145:classification* / Q000187:drug effects / Q000235:genetics / Q000302:isolation & purification; D016908:Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006757:Hospital Units; D006801:Humans; D000091402:Prohibitins; D015183:Restriction Mapping; D012703:Serotyping / Q000379:methods; D020713:Vancomycin Resistance