The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of phage typing and DNA fingerprinting by polymerase chain reaction for discrimination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains
Open accessAbstract
A typing procedure for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of both mecA sequences and variable DNA sequences as present in the prokaryotic genome has been developed. Two primers based on the sequences of DNA repeats as discovered in gram-negative members of the family Enterobacteriaceae allow detection of variable regions in the genome of a gram-positive bacterium such as S. aureus, as does a newly described arbitrary primer. This procedure, enabling the detection of 23 different genotypes in a collection of 48 MRSA isolates, was validated by comparisons with phage typing studies. It appeared that within the same group of isolates only 13 different phagovars could be identified. Combination of the results from both phage typing and genotyping allowed the discrimination of 34 of 48 isolates. However, depending on the primer-variable complexity of the PCR fingerprints, which could also be modulated by combination of PCR primers, clear homologies between the groups defined by either phage typing or fingerprinting were observed. An analysis of an MRSA outbreak in a geriatric institution showed a collection of genetically homogeneous isolates. In agreement with phage typing, PCR fingerprinting revealed the identical natures of the MRSA strains isolated from all patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Saiki, R. K., Scharf, S., Faloona, F., Mullis, K. B., Horn, G. T., Erlich, H. A., & Arnheim, N. (1985) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2999980 · Cited by 8,956
Cited by
Tyler, K. D., Wang, G., Tyler, S. D., & Johnson, W. M. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.35.2.339-346.1997 · Cited by 285
Koeuth, T., Versalovic, J., & Lupski, J. R. (1995) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.5.4.408 · Cited by 279
Staphylococcus simiae sp. nov., isolated from South American squirrel monkeys
Pantůček, R., Sedláček, I., Petráš, P., Koukalová, D., Švec, P., Štětina, V., Vancanneyt, M., Chrastinová, L., Vokurková, J., Růžičková, V., et al. (2005) · International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology · doi:10.1099/ijs.0.63590-0 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- van Belkum, A., Bax, R., Peerbooms, P., Goessens, W. H., van Leeuwen, N., & Quint, W. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1993-04
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 798-803
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1518023935
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of phage typing and DNA fingerprinting by polymerase chain reaction for discrimination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.31.4.798-803.1993
- The paper
- van Belkum, A., Bax, R., Peerbooms, P., Goessens, W. H., van Leeuwen, N., & Quint, W. G. (1993). Comparison of phage typing and DNA fingerprinting by polymerase chain reaction for discrimination of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.31.4.798-803.1993
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.