1986
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1986.tb15880.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterisation of Histophilus ovis and related organisms by restriction endonuclease analysis

Abstract: The banding profiles generated by Bam H1 restriction endonuclease cleavage of bacterial DNA from clinical and reference isolates of Histophilus ovls, Haemophilus somnus and related bacteria were compared. H. ovis, H. somnus and Haemophilus agni isolates were found to have distinct similarities in banding profiles characterised by 10 common bands between 2.0 and 9.6 kilobases (kb). The close taxonomic relationship of these isolates was reinforced by these findings. The reference isolates examined In this study … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Stephens et al (1983) showed that H. ovis, H. somnus and H. agni are very c10sely related biochemicaIly and these findings were later supported by DNA hybridization studies (Walker et al, 1985;PiechuUa et al, 1986) and restriction endonuc1ease analyses (McGillivery et al, 1986;Kirkham et al, 1989). Interestingly, H. ovis and H. somnus can aIso be differentiated by restriction enzyme analyses (McGillivery et al, 1986;Kirkham et al, 1989) and by means ofpolymerase chain reaction (peR) ribotyping (Appuhamy et al, 1998). In 2003, Angen and co-workers reported the grouping of aU three species based on the nuc1eotide sequences of 16S rRNA and the genes (ropB) that encode the ~ subunit of RNA polymerase.…”
Section: Histophilus Somnimentioning
confidence: 72%
“…For example, Stephens et al (1983) showed that H. ovis, H. somnus and H. agni are very c10sely related biochemicaIly and these findings were later supported by DNA hybridization studies (Walker et al, 1985;PiechuUa et al, 1986) and restriction endonuc1ease analyses (McGillivery et al, 1986;Kirkham et al, 1989). Interestingly, H. ovis and H. somnus can aIso be differentiated by restriction enzyme analyses (McGillivery et al, 1986;Kirkham et al, 1989) and by means ofpolymerase chain reaction (peR) ribotyping (Appuhamy et al, 1998). In 2003, Angen and co-workers reported the grouping of aU three species based on the nuc1eotide sequences of 16S rRNA and the genes (ropB) that encode the ~ subunit of RNA polymerase.…”
Section: Histophilus Somnimentioning
confidence: 72%
“…This result is consistent with the antigenic (4,32,38) and biochemical similarities of H. somnus and H. agni (2,38) which have been shown by others. More recently, H. somnus, H. agni, and Histophilus ovis were shoWn to be very similar by restriction endonuclease analysis (31). Historically, isolates were called H. agni or Histophilus ovis if obtained from sheep and H. somnus if obtained from cattle (2,38); therefore, the cross-reactivity between H. somnus and H. agni should not lead to confusion in diagnostic assays.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis has not been undertaken with these organisms. Plasmid typing and restriction endonuclease fingerprinting have been used to differentiate among a small number of isolates of "H. somnus," "H. agni," and "H. ovis" (16,21).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%