Cargando…

Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species

BACKGROUND: Several sequence based genotyping schemes have been developed for Leptospira spp. The objective of this study was to genotype a collection of clinical and reference isolates using the two most commonly used schemes and compare and contrast the results. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 48...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahmed, Ahmed, Thaipadungpanit, Janjira, Boonsilp, Siriphan, Wuthiekanun, Vanaporn, Nalam, Kishore, Spratt, Brian G., Aanensen, David M., Smythe, Lee D., Ahmed, Niyaz, Feil, Edward J., Hartskeerl, Rudy A., Peacock, Sharon J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22087342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001374
_version_ 1782215753674522624
author Ahmed, Ahmed
Thaipadungpanit, Janjira
Boonsilp, Siriphan
Wuthiekanun, Vanaporn
Nalam, Kishore
Spratt, Brian G.
Aanensen, David M.
Smythe, Lee D.
Ahmed, Niyaz
Feil, Edward J.
Hartskeerl, Rudy A.
Peacock, Sharon J.
author_facet Ahmed, Ahmed
Thaipadungpanit, Janjira
Boonsilp, Siriphan
Wuthiekanun, Vanaporn
Nalam, Kishore
Spratt, Brian G.
Aanensen, David M.
Smythe, Lee D.
Ahmed, Niyaz
Feil, Edward J.
Hartskeerl, Rudy A.
Peacock, Sharon J.
author_sort Ahmed, Ahmed
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several sequence based genotyping schemes have been developed for Leptospira spp. The objective of this study was to genotype a collection of clinical and reference isolates using the two most commonly used schemes and compare and contrast the results. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 48 isolates consisting of L. interrogans (n = 40) and L. kirschneri (n = 8) were typed by the 7 locus MLST scheme described by Thaipadungpanit et al., and the 6 locus genotyping scheme described by Ahmed et al., (termed 7L and 6L, respectively). Two L. interrogans isolates were not typed using 6L because of a deletion of three nucleotides in lipL32. The remaining 46 isolates were resolved into 21 sequence types (STs) by 7L, and 30 genotypes by 6L. Overall nucleotide diversity (based on concatenated sequence) was 3.6% and 2.3% for 7L and 6L, respectively. The D value (discriminatory ability) of 7L and 6L were comparable, i.e. 92.0 (95% CI 87.5–96.5) vs. 93.5 (95% CI 88.6–98.4). The dN/dS ratios calculated for each locus indicated that none were under positive selection. Neighbor joining trees were reconstructed based on the concatenated sequences for each scheme. Both trees showed two distinct groups corresponding to L. interrogans and L. kirschneri, and both identified two clones containing 10 and 7 clinical isolates, respectively. There were six instances in which 6L split single STs as defined by 7L into closely related clusters. We noted two discrepancies between the trees in which the genetic relatedness between two pairs of strains were more closely related by 7L than by 6L. CONCLUSIONS: This genetic analysis indicates that the two schemes are comparable. We discuss their practical advantages and disadvantages.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3210738
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32107382011-11-15 Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species Ahmed, Ahmed Thaipadungpanit, Janjira Boonsilp, Siriphan Wuthiekanun, Vanaporn Nalam, Kishore Spratt, Brian G. Aanensen, David M. Smythe, Lee D. Ahmed, Niyaz Feil, Edward J. Hartskeerl, Rudy A. Peacock, Sharon J. PLoS Negl Trop Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Several sequence based genotyping schemes have been developed for Leptospira spp. The objective of this study was to genotype a collection of clinical and reference isolates using the two most commonly used schemes and compare and contrast the results. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 48 isolates consisting of L. interrogans (n = 40) and L. kirschneri (n = 8) were typed by the 7 locus MLST scheme described by Thaipadungpanit et al., and the 6 locus genotyping scheme described by Ahmed et al., (termed 7L and 6L, respectively). Two L. interrogans isolates were not typed using 6L because of a deletion of three nucleotides in lipL32. The remaining 46 isolates were resolved into 21 sequence types (STs) by 7L, and 30 genotypes by 6L. Overall nucleotide diversity (based on concatenated sequence) was 3.6% and 2.3% for 7L and 6L, respectively. The D value (discriminatory ability) of 7L and 6L were comparable, i.e. 92.0 (95% CI 87.5–96.5) vs. 93.5 (95% CI 88.6–98.4). The dN/dS ratios calculated for each locus indicated that none were under positive selection. Neighbor joining trees were reconstructed based on the concatenated sequences for each scheme. Both trees showed two distinct groups corresponding to L. interrogans and L. kirschneri, and both identified two clones containing 10 and 7 clinical isolates, respectively. There were six instances in which 6L split single STs as defined by 7L into closely related clusters. We noted two discrepancies between the trees in which the genetic relatedness between two pairs of strains were more closely related by 7L than by 6L. CONCLUSIONS: This genetic analysis indicates that the two schemes are comparable. We discuss their practical advantages and disadvantages. Public Library of Science 2011-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3210738/ /pubmed/22087342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001374 Text en Ahmed et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ahmed, Ahmed
Thaipadungpanit, Janjira
Boonsilp, Siriphan
Wuthiekanun, Vanaporn
Nalam, Kishore
Spratt, Brian G.
Aanensen, David M.
Smythe, Lee D.
Ahmed, Niyaz
Feil, Edward J.
Hartskeerl, Rudy A.
Peacock, Sharon J.
Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species
title Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species
title_full Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species
title_fullStr Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species
title_short Comparison of Two Multilocus Sequence Based Genotyping Schemes for Leptospira Species
title_sort comparison of two multilocus sequence based genotyping schemes for leptospira species
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22087342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001374
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmedahmed comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT thaipadungpanitjanjira comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT boonsilpsiriphan comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT wuthiekanunvanaporn comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT nalamkishore comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT sprattbriang comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT aanensendavidm comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT smytheleed comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT ahmedniyaz comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT feiledwardj comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT hartskeerlrudya comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies
AT peacocksharonj comparisonoftwomultilocussequencebasedgenotypingschemesforleptospiraspecies