Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of traditional and molecular methods of typing isolates of Staphylococcus aureus

Open access
Tenover, F C, Arbeit, R, Archer, G, Biddle, J, Byrne, S, Goering, R, Hancock, G, Hébert, G A, Hill, B, Hollis, R·1994·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.32.2.407-415.1994

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 516

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
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.