The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of traditional and molecular methods of typing isolates of Staphylococcus aureus
Open accessAbstract
Fifty-nine Staphylococcus aureus isolates and 1 isolate of Staphylococcus intermedius were typed by investigators at eight institutions by using either antibiograms, bacteriophage typing, biotyping, immunoblotting, insertion sequence typing with IS257/431, multilocus enzyme electrophoresis, restriction analysis of plasmid DNA, pulsed-field or field inversion gel electrophoresis, restriction analysis of PCR-amplified coagulase gene sequences, restriction fragment length polymorphism typing by using four staphylococcal genes as probes, or ribotyping. Isolates from four well-characterized outbreaks (n = 29) and a collection of organisms from two nursing homes were mixed with epidemiologically unrelated stock strains from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several isolates were included multiple times either within or between the sets of isolates to analyze the reproducibilities of the typing systems. Overall, the DNA-based techniques and immunoblotting were most effective in grouping outbreak-related strains, recognizing 27 to 29 of the 29 outbreak-related strains; however, they also tended to include 3 to 8 epidemiologically unrelated isolates in the same strain type. Restriction fragment length polymorphism methods with mec gene-associated loci were less useful than other techniques for typing oxacillin-susceptible isolates. Phage typing, plasmid DNA restriction analysis, and antibiogram analysis, the techniques most readily available to clinical laboratories, identified 23 to 26 of 29 outbreak-related isolates and assigned 0 to 6 unrelated isolates to outbreak strain types. No single technique was clearly superior to the others; however, biotyping, because it produced so many subtypes, did not effectively group outbreak-related strains of S. aureus.
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
Cited by
Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks
Kluytmans, J., van Belkum, A., & Verbrugh, H. (1997) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.10.3.505 · Cited by 2,595
Nasal Carriage as a Source of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
von Eiff, C., Becker, K., Machka, K., Stammer, H., & Peters, G. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200101043440102 · Cited by 1,984
The molecular evolution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Deurenberg, R. H., Vink, C., Kalenic, S., Friedrich, A. W., Bruggeman, C. A., & Stobberingh, E. E. (2007) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01573.x · Cited by 597
Lee, J. H. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.11.6489-6494.2003 · Cited by 513
Oliveira, D. C., Tomasz, A., & de Lencastre, H. (2002) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(02)00227-x · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Tenover, F. C., Arbeit, R., Archer, G., Biddle, J., Byrne, S., Goering, R., Hancock, G., Hébert, G. A., Hill, B., & Hollis, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1994-02
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 407-415
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2103123638
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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 traditional and molecular methods of typing isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.32.2.407-415.1994
- The paper
- Tenover, F. C., Arbeit, R., Archer, G., Biddle, J., Byrne, S., Goering, R., Hancock, G., Hébert, G. A., Hill, B., & Hollis, R. (1994). Comparison of traditional and molecular methods of typing isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.32.2.407-415.1994
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.