English   español  
Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/3058
logo share SHARE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorGutacker, Michaelaen_US
dc.contributor.authorConza, Nadineen_US
dc.contributor.authorBenagli, Cinziaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPedroli, Ambraen_US
dc.contributor.authorBernasconi, Marco Valerioen_US
dc.contributor.authorPermin, Liseen_US
dc.contributor.authorAznar, Rosaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPiffaretti, Jean-Claudeen_US
dc.identifier.citationApplied and Environmental Microbiology 69 (6) : 3203-3212 (2003)en_US
dc.description.abstractGenetic relationships among 62 Vibrio vulnificus strains of different geographical and host origins were analyzed by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE), random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD), and sequence analyses of the recA and glnA genes. Out of 15 genetic loci analyzed by MLEE, 11 were polymorphic. Cluster analysis identified 43 distinct electrophoretic types (ETs) separating the V. vulnificus population into two divisions (divisions I and II). One ET (ET 35) included all indole-negative isolates from diseased eels worldwide (biotype 2). A second ET (ET 2) marked all of the strains from Israel isolated from patients who handled St. Peter's fish (biotype 3). RAPD analysis of the 62 V. vulnificus isolates identified 26 different profiles separated into two divisions as well. In general, this subdivision was comparable (but not identical) to that observed by MLEE. Phylogenetic analysis of 543 bp of the recA gene and of 402 bp of the glnA gene also separated the V. vulnificus population into two major divisions in a manner similar to that by MLEE and RAPD. Sequence data again indicated the overall subdivision of the V. vulnificus population into different biotypes. In particular, indole-negative eel-pathogenic isolates (biotype 2) on one hand and the Israeli isolates (biotype 3) on the other tended to cluster together in both gene trees. None of the methods showed an association between distinct clones and human clinical manifestations. Furthermore, except for the Israeli strains, only minor clusters comprising geographically related isolates were observed. In conclusion, all three approaches (MLEE, RAPD, and DNA sequencing) generated comparable but not always equivalent results. The significance of the two divisions (divisions I and II) still remains to be clarified, and a reevaluation of the definition of the biotypes is also neededen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipgrants 31-45914.95 and 31-64976.01 from the Swiss National Science Foundationen_US
dc.format.extent230375 bytes-
dc.format.extent2459 bytes-
dc.publisherAmerican Society for Microbiologyen_US
dc.subjectVibrio vulnificusen_US
dc.subjectmultilocus enzyme electrophoresisen_US
dc.subjectrandom amplification of polymorphic DNAen_US
dc.titlePopulation Genetics of Vibrio vulnificus: Identification of Two Divisions and a Distinct Eel-Pathogenic Cloneen_US
Aparece en las colecciones: (IATA) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.
Show simple item record

NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.