Comparison of three genotyping methods to identify Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in positive men and women
Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) comprises 3 serogroups and 19 serovars. Different genotyping methods are available to differentiate between the serovars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and discriminatory power of three genotyping methods, respectively Omp1 sequencing, the Ct Detect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Molecular and cellular probes 2010-10, Vol.24 (5), p.266-270 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 270 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 266 |
container_title | Molecular and cellular probes |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Quint, K.D. Bom, R.J.M. Bruisten, S.M. van Doorn, L.J. Nassir Hajipour, N. Melchers, W.J.G. de Vries, H.J.C. Morre, S.A. Quint, W.G.V. |
description | Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) comprises 3 serogroups and 19 serovars. Different genotyping methods are available to differentiate between the serovars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and discriminatory power of three genotyping methods, respectively
Omp1 sequencing, the Ct Detection and genoTyping (DT) assay and the
pmpH real-time PCR discriminating an LGV infection from a non-LGV infection. In total, 50 Aptima Combo 2 (AC2) Ct positive samples were selected and tested with the 3 genotyping methods. The Ct-DT assay detected 3 double Ct infections that caused a non interpretable result by
Omp1 sequencing, while
Omp1 sequencing has a higher discriminatory power that gave additional information about Ct genovariants. All three methods detected the 6 LGV samples. Although the
pmpH real-time PCR detected all LGV infections, a substantial amount (24%) of non-LGV infections were missed. The sensitivity compared to AC2 Ct detection was 80% (95% CI 67–89%) for the Ct-DT assay, 72% (95% CI 58–83%) for
Omp1 sequencing and 64% (95% CI 50–76%) for the
pmpH real-time PCR. In conclusion, the Ct-DT assay is appropriate for serovar distribution studies, epidemiological studies and differentiation between an LGV and non-LGV Ct infection, while
Omp1 sequencing is more appropriate for phylogenetic studies. The
pmpH real-time PCR is suitable as second assay to differentiate between an LGV and non-LGV infection, but not as primary detection assay, due to its low sensitivity for non-LGV strains. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.mcp.2010.04.007 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_754018550</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0890850810000277</els_id><sourcerecordid>754018550</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-100714f8e9f6e74b62d8cbffd438c64c1931022ca3650968bcf980ff1e28af363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFrGzEQhUVpaBynP6CXoFtP6452tWstPRWTNAVDL81ZyNLIltmVNpLs4n8fGcc99jQz8L3HvEfIFwYLBqz7tl-MelrUUG7gC4DlBzJj0HcVYz3_SGYgeqhEC-KW3KW0B4Ceg_hEbmvg7bLmYkaGVRgnFV0KngZL8y4i0i36kE-T81s6Yt4Fk2gO1Bn02dkTXe0GNZ6MUzRHpXdhVNmlqwgTdZ5OIbnsjlj0nipv6N9QtntyY9WQ8PP7nJOXp8c_q-dq_fvnr9WPdaWbvs0VK0kYtwJ72-GSb7raCL2x1vBG6I5r1jcM6lqrpmtLWrHRthdgLcNaKNt0zZx8vfhOMbweMGU5uqRxGJTHcEhy2XJgom2hkOxC6hhSimjlFN2o4kkykOeO5V6WjuW5Ywlcls-K5uHd_bAZ0fxTXEstwPcLgCXj0WGUSTv0Go2LqLM0wf3H_g20fY5X</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>754018550</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of three genotyping methods to identify Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in positive men and women</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Quint, K.D. ; Bom, R.J.M. ; Bruisten, S.M. ; van Doorn, L.J. ; Nassir Hajipour, N. ; Melchers, W.J.G. ; de Vries, H.J.C. ; Morre, S.A. ; Quint, W.G.V.</creator><creatorcontrib>Quint, K.D. ; Bom, R.J.M. ; Bruisten, S.M. ; van Doorn, L.J. ; Nassir Hajipour, N. ; Melchers, W.J.G. ; de Vries, H.J.C. ; Morre, S.A. ; Quint, W.G.V.</creatorcontrib><description>Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) comprises 3 serogroups and 19 serovars. Different genotyping methods are available to differentiate between the serovars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and discriminatory power of three genotyping methods, respectively
Omp1 sequencing, the Ct Detection and genoTyping (DT) assay and the
pmpH real-time PCR discriminating an LGV infection from a non-LGV infection. In total, 50 Aptima Combo 2 (AC2) Ct positive samples were selected and tested with the 3 genotyping methods. The Ct-DT assay detected 3 double Ct infections that caused a non interpretable result by
Omp1 sequencing, while
Omp1 sequencing has a higher discriminatory power that gave additional information about Ct genovariants. All three methods detected the 6 LGV samples. Although the
pmpH real-time PCR detected all LGV infections, a substantial amount (24%) of non-LGV infections were missed. The sensitivity compared to AC2 Ct detection was 80% (95% CI 67–89%) for the Ct-DT assay, 72% (95% CI 58–83%) for
Omp1 sequencing and 64% (95% CI 50–76%) for the
pmpH real-time PCR. In conclusion, the Ct-DT assay is appropriate for serovar distribution studies, epidemiological studies and differentiation between an LGV and non-LGV Ct infection, while
Omp1 sequencing is more appropriate for phylogenetic studies. The
pmpH real-time PCR is suitable as second assay to differentiate between an LGV and non-LGV infection, but not as primary detection assay, due to its low sensitivity for non-LGV strains.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-8508</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-1194</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.mcp.2010.04.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20457248</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins - genetics ; Bacterial Proteins - genetics ; Chlamydia trachomatis ; Chlamydia trachomatis - classification ; Chlamydia trachomatis - genetics ; Ct sequencing ; DNA Probes ; DNA, Bacterial - chemistry ; DNA, Bacterial - genetics ; Female ; Genotype ; Genotyping ; Humans ; LGV ; Lymphogranuloma venereum ; Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis ; Lymphogranuloma Venereum - microbiology ; Male ; Molecular Typing - methods ; Nucleic Acid Hybridization - methods ; Omp1 sequencing ; pmpH ; Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods ; Porins - genetics ; Reproducibility of Results ; Reverse hybridization ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sequence Analysis, DNA</subject><ispartof>Molecular and cellular probes, 2010-10, Vol.24 (5), p.266-270</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-100714f8e9f6e74b62d8cbffd438c64c1931022ca3650968bcf980ff1e28af363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-100714f8e9f6e74b62d8cbffd438c64c1931022ca3650968bcf980ff1e28af363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcp.2010.04.007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20457248$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Quint, K.D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bom, R.J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruisten, S.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Doorn, L.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nassir Hajipour, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melchers, W.J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, H.J.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morre, S.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quint, W.G.V.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of three genotyping methods to identify Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in positive men and women</title><title>Molecular and cellular probes</title><addtitle>Mol Cell Probes</addtitle><description>Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) comprises 3 serogroups and 19 serovars. Different genotyping methods are available to differentiate between the serovars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and discriminatory power of three genotyping methods, respectively
Omp1 sequencing, the Ct Detection and genoTyping (DT) assay and the
pmpH real-time PCR discriminating an LGV infection from a non-LGV infection. In total, 50 Aptima Combo 2 (AC2) Ct positive samples were selected and tested with the 3 genotyping methods. The Ct-DT assay detected 3 double Ct infections that caused a non interpretable result by
Omp1 sequencing, while
Omp1 sequencing has a higher discriminatory power that gave additional information about Ct genovariants. All three methods detected the 6 LGV samples. Although the
pmpH real-time PCR detected all LGV infections, a substantial amount (24%) of non-LGV infections were missed. The sensitivity compared to AC2 Ct detection was 80% (95% CI 67–89%) for the Ct-DT assay, 72% (95% CI 58–83%) for
Omp1 sequencing and 64% (95% CI 50–76%) for the
pmpH real-time PCR. In conclusion, the Ct-DT assay is appropriate for serovar distribution studies, epidemiological studies and differentiation between an LGV and non-LGV Ct infection, while
Omp1 sequencing is more appropriate for phylogenetic studies. The
pmpH real-time PCR is suitable as second assay to differentiate between an LGV and non-LGV infection, but not as primary detection assay, due to its low sensitivity for non-LGV strains.</description><subject>Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins - genetics</subject><subject>Bacterial Proteins - genetics</subject><subject>Chlamydia trachomatis</subject><subject>Chlamydia trachomatis - classification</subject><subject>Chlamydia trachomatis - genetics</subject><subject>Ct sequencing</subject><subject>DNA Probes</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial - chemistry</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial - genetics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genotype</subject><subject>Genotyping</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>LGV</subject><subject>Lymphogranuloma venereum</subject><subject>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis</subject><subject>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - microbiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Molecular Typing - methods</subject><subject>Nucleic Acid Hybridization - methods</subject><subject>Omp1 sequencing</subject><subject>pmpH</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</subject><subject>Porins - genetics</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Reverse hybridization</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sequence Analysis, DNA</subject><issn>0890-8508</issn><issn>1096-1194</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFrGzEQhUVpaBynP6CXoFtP6452tWstPRWTNAVDL81ZyNLIltmVNpLs4n8fGcc99jQz8L3HvEfIFwYLBqz7tl-MelrUUG7gC4DlBzJj0HcVYz3_SGYgeqhEC-KW3KW0B4Ceg_hEbmvg7bLmYkaGVRgnFV0KngZL8y4i0i36kE-T81s6Yt4Fk2gO1Bn02dkTXe0GNZ6MUzRHpXdhVNmlqwgTdZ5OIbnsjlj0nipv6N9QtntyY9WQ8PP7nJOXp8c_q-dq_fvnr9WPdaWbvs0VK0kYtwJ72-GSb7raCL2x1vBG6I5r1jcM6lqrpmtLWrHRthdgLcNaKNt0zZx8vfhOMbweMGU5uqRxGJTHcEhy2XJgom2hkOxC6hhSimjlFN2o4kkykOeO5V6WjuW5Ywlcls-K5uHd_bAZ0fxTXEstwPcLgCXj0WGUSTv0Go2LqLM0wf3H_g20fY5X</recordid><startdate>20101001</startdate><enddate>20101001</enddate><creator>Quint, K.D.</creator><creator>Bom, R.J.M.</creator><creator>Bruisten, S.M.</creator><creator>van Doorn, L.J.</creator><creator>Nassir Hajipour, N.</creator><creator>Melchers, W.J.G.</creator><creator>de Vries, H.J.C.</creator><creator>Morre, S.A.</creator><creator>Quint, W.G.V.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101001</creationdate><title>Comparison of three genotyping methods to identify Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in positive men and women</title><author>Quint, K.D. ; Bom, R.J.M. ; Bruisten, S.M. ; van Doorn, L.J. ; Nassir Hajipour, N. ; Melchers, W.J.G. ; de Vries, H.J.C. ; Morre, S.A. ; Quint, W.G.V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-100714f8e9f6e74b62d8cbffd438c64c1931022ca3650968bcf980ff1e28af363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins - genetics</topic><topic>Bacterial Proteins - genetics</topic><topic>Chlamydia trachomatis</topic><topic>Chlamydia trachomatis - classification</topic><topic>Chlamydia trachomatis - genetics</topic><topic>Ct sequencing</topic><topic>DNA Probes</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial - chemistry</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial - genetics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genotype</topic><topic>Genotyping</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>LGV</topic><topic>Lymphogranuloma venereum</topic><topic>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis</topic><topic>Lymphogranuloma Venereum - microbiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Molecular Typing - methods</topic><topic>Nucleic Acid Hybridization - methods</topic><topic>Omp1 sequencing</topic><topic>pmpH</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</topic><topic>Porins - genetics</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Reverse hybridization</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sequence Analysis, DNA</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Quint, K.D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bom, R.J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruisten, S.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Doorn, L.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nassir Hajipour, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melchers, W.J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, H.J.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morre, S.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quint, W.G.V.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Molecular and cellular probes</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Quint, K.D.</au><au>Bom, R.J.M.</au><au>Bruisten, S.M.</au><au>van Doorn, L.J.</au><au>Nassir Hajipour, N.</au><au>Melchers, W.J.G.</au><au>de Vries, H.J.C.</au><au>Morre, S.A.</au><au>Quint, W.G.V.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of three genotyping methods to identify Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in positive men and women</atitle><jtitle>Molecular and cellular probes</jtitle><addtitle>Mol Cell Probes</addtitle><date>2010-10-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>266</spage><epage>270</epage><pages>266-270</pages><issn>0890-8508</issn><eissn>1096-1194</eissn><abstract>Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) comprises 3 serogroups and 19 serovars. Different genotyping methods are available to differentiate between the serovars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and discriminatory power of three genotyping methods, respectively
Omp1 sequencing, the Ct Detection and genoTyping (DT) assay and the
pmpH real-time PCR discriminating an LGV infection from a non-LGV infection. In total, 50 Aptima Combo 2 (AC2) Ct positive samples were selected and tested with the 3 genotyping methods. The Ct-DT assay detected 3 double Ct infections that caused a non interpretable result by
Omp1 sequencing, while
Omp1 sequencing has a higher discriminatory power that gave additional information about Ct genovariants. All three methods detected the 6 LGV samples. Although the
pmpH real-time PCR detected all LGV infections, a substantial amount (24%) of non-LGV infections were missed. The sensitivity compared to AC2 Ct detection was 80% (95% CI 67–89%) for the Ct-DT assay, 72% (95% CI 58–83%) for
Omp1 sequencing and 64% (95% CI 50–76%) for the
pmpH real-time PCR. In conclusion, the Ct-DT assay is appropriate for serovar distribution studies, epidemiological studies and differentiation between an LGV and non-LGV Ct infection, while
Omp1 sequencing is more appropriate for phylogenetic studies. The
pmpH real-time PCR is suitable as second assay to differentiate between an LGV and non-LGV infection, but not as primary detection assay, due to its low sensitivity for non-LGV strains.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>20457248</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.mcp.2010.04.007</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0890-8508 |
ispartof | Molecular and cellular probes, 2010-10, Vol.24 (5), p.266-270 |
issn | 0890-8508 1096-1194 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_754018550 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins - genetics Bacterial Proteins - genetics Chlamydia trachomatis Chlamydia trachomatis - classification Chlamydia trachomatis - genetics Ct sequencing DNA Probes DNA, Bacterial - chemistry DNA, Bacterial - genetics Female Genotype Genotyping Humans LGV Lymphogranuloma venereum Lymphogranuloma Venereum - diagnosis Lymphogranuloma Venereum - microbiology Male Molecular Typing - methods Nucleic Acid Hybridization - methods Omp1 sequencing pmpH Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods Porins - genetics Reproducibility of Results Reverse hybridization Sensitivity and Specificity Sequence Analysis, DNA |
title | Comparison of three genotyping methods to identify Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in positive men and women |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T13%3A06%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20three%20genotyping%20methods%20to%20identify%20Chlamydia%20trachomatis%20genotypes%20in%20positive%20men%20and%20women&rft.jtitle=Molecular%20and%20cellular%20probes&rft.au=Quint,%20K.D.&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=266&rft.epage=270&rft.pages=266-270&rft.issn=0890-8508&rft.eissn=1096-1194&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.mcp.2010.04.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E754018550%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=754018550&rft_id=info:pmid/20457248&rft_els_id=S0890850810000277&rfr_iscdi=true |