2003
DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00661.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of PCR-based methods for typing Escherichia coli

Abstract: AFLP analysis showed the highest discriminative capacity for PCR typing of E. coli isolates. Analysis of fingerprints employing the Dice coefficients proved the most efficient method for an automated software-based retrieval of visually indistinguishable genotypes in an AFLP fingerprint database.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
9
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings were coherent with other some studies (Fei et al, ; Wei et al, ; Mohapatra et al, ). On the other hand, the results were not in agreement with Jonas et al () who stated that RAPD and rep‐PCR methods were insufficient for the discrimination of E. coli strains also with Johnson and O’Bryan () who reported the inadequacy of single rep‐PCR methods in clear discrimination.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 76%
“…Our findings were coherent with other some studies (Fei et al, ; Wei et al, ; Mohapatra et al, ). On the other hand, the results were not in agreement with Jonas et al () who stated that RAPD and rep‐PCR methods were insufficient for the discrimination of E. coli strains also with Johnson and O’Bryan () who reported the inadequacy of single rep‐PCR methods in clear discrimination.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 76%
“…To unequivocally prove identity of individual E. coli isolates, a highly discriminating typing method is needed. The use of antibiotic resistances profiles, PCRs targeting repetitive elements (rep‐PCRs) or multilocus sequence typing (MLST) (Rwego et al., ,b; Pesapane et al., ) failed to be as sensitive as PFGE analysis used in the current study (Jonas et al., ; McLellan et al., ). Although much more time and cost consuming than other methods, PFGE analysis' reproducibility is higher than that of other tests, for example rep‐PCR (Foley et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Several studies have recommended the usage of ERIC-PCR for E. coli strains obtained from different sources due to it is power of differentiation (Dhanashree and Shrikara, 2012 ;Diab and Al-urk, 2011;Maryam, 2016) In addition, several other PCR based typing methods have been developed based on the repeated DNA sequence elements distributed throughout the genome. These include randomly amplified polymorphic DNA and restriction fragment length polymorphism (Jonas et al, 2003).…”
Section: Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus (Eric)mentioning
confidence: 99%