Cargando…

Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections

108 isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, belonging to six large ribogroups according to the automated Ribo-Printer(®) system, were studied with two highly used molecular methods for epidemiological studies, namely multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) and spa typing, followed by BURP and eBURST v3 analys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ravaioli, Stefano, Campoccia, Davide, Ruppitsch, Werner, Allerberger, Franz, Poggi, Alessandro, Chisari, Emanuele, Montanaro, Lucio, Arciola, Carla Renata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35163582
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031660
_version_ 1784649508945133568
author Ravaioli, Stefano
Campoccia, Davide
Ruppitsch, Werner
Allerberger, Franz
Poggi, Alessandro
Chisari, Emanuele
Montanaro, Lucio
Arciola, Carla Renata
author_facet Ravaioli, Stefano
Campoccia, Davide
Ruppitsch, Werner
Allerberger, Franz
Poggi, Alessandro
Chisari, Emanuele
Montanaro, Lucio
Arciola, Carla Renata
author_sort Ravaioli, Stefano
collection PubMed
description 108 isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, belonging to six large ribogroups according to the automated Ribo-Printer(®) system, were studied with two highly used molecular methods for epidemiological studies, namely multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) and spa typing, followed by BURP and eBURST v3 analysis for clustering spa types and sequence (ST) types. The aim was to evaluate whether automated ribotyping could be considered a useful screening tool for identifying S. aureus genetic lineages with respect to spa typing and MLST. Clarifying the relationship of riboprinting with these typing methods and establishing whether ribogroups fit single clonal complexes were two main objectives. Further information on the genetic profile of the isolates was obtained from agr typing and the search for the mecA, tst genes, and the IS256 insertion sequence. Automated ribotyping has been shown to predict spa clonal complexes and MLST clonal complexes. The high cost and lower discriminatory power of automated ribotyping compared to spa and MSLT typing could be an obstacle to fine genotyping analyzes, especially when high discriminatory power is required. On the other hand, numerous advantages such as automation, ease and speed of execution, stability, typeability and reproducibility make ribotyping a reliable method to be juxtaposed to gold standard methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8835750
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88357502022-02-12 Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections Ravaioli, Stefano Campoccia, Davide Ruppitsch, Werner Allerberger, Franz Poggi, Alessandro Chisari, Emanuele Montanaro, Lucio Arciola, Carla Renata Int J Mol Sci Article 108 isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, belonging to six large ribogroups according to the automated Ribo-Printer(®) system, were studied with two highly used molecular methods for epidemiological studies, namely multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) and spa typing, followed by BURP and eBURST v3 analysis for clustering spa types and sequence (ST) types. The aim was to evaluate whether automated ribotyping could be considered a useful screening tool for identifying S. aureus genetic lineages with respect to spa typing and MLST. Clarifying the relationship of riboprinting with these typing methods and establishing whether ribogroups fit single clonal complexes were two main objectives. Further information on the genetic profile of the isolates was obtained from agr typing and the search for the mecA, tst genes, and the IS256 insertion sequence. Automated ribotyping has been shown to predict spa clonal complexes and MLST clonal complexes. The high cost and lower discriminatory power of automated ribotyping compared to spa and MSLT typing could be an obstacle to fine genotyping analyzes, especially when high discriminatory power is required. On the other hand, numerous advantages such as automation, ease and speed of execution, stability, typeability and reproducibility make ribotyping a reliable method to be juxtaposed to gold standard methods. MDPI 2022-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8835750/ /pubmed/35163582 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031660 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ravaioli, Stefano
Campoccia, Davide
Ruppitsch, Werner
Allerberger, Franz
Poggi, Alessandro
Chisari, Emanuele
Montanaro, Lucio
Arciola, Carla Renata
Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections
title Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections
title_full Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections
title_fullStr Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections
title_short Comparison of Automated Ribotyping, spa Typing, and MLST in 108 Clinical Isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from Orthopedic Infections
title_sort comparison of automated ribotyping, spa typing, and mlst in 108 clinical isolates of staphylococcus aureus from orthopedic infections
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35163582
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031660
work_keys_str_mv AT ravaiolistefano comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT campocciadavide comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT ruppitschwerner comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT allerbergerfranz comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT poggialessandro comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT chisariemanuele comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT montanarolucio comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections
AT arciolacarlarenata comparisonofautomatedribotypingspatypingandmlstin108clinicalisolatesofstaphylococcusaureusfromorthopedicinfections