The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Simultaneous detection and strain differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for diagnosis and epidemiology
Open accessAbstract
Widespread use of DNA restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) to differentiate strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to monitor the transmission of tuberculosis has been hampered by the need to culture this slow-growing organism and by the level of technical sophistication needed for RFLP typing. We have developed a simple method which allows simultaneous detection and typing of M. tuberculosis in clinical specimens and reduces the time between suspicion of the disease and typing from 1 or several months to 1 or 3 days. The method is based on polymorphism of the chromosomal DR locus, which contains a variable number of short direct repeats interspersed with nonrepetitive spacers. The method is referred to as spacer oligotyping or "spoligotyping" because it is based on strain-dependent hybridization patterns of in vitro-amplified DNA with multiple spacer oligonucleotides. Most of the clinical isolates tested showed unique hybridization patterns, whereas outbreak strains shared the same spoligotype. The types obtained from direct examination of clinical samples were identical to those obtained by using DNA from cultured M. tuberculosis. This novel preliminary study shows that the novel method may be a useful tool for rapid disclosure of linked outbreak cases in a community, in hospitals, or in other institutions and for monitoring of transmission of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Unexpectedly, spoligotyping was found to differentiate M. bovis from M. tuberculosis, a distinction which is often difficult to make by traditional methods.
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
Identification of genes that are associated with DNA repeats in prokaryotes
Jansen, R., Embden, J. D. A. V., Gaastra, W., & Schouls, L. M. (2002) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.02839.x · Cited by 1,802
Self-citationBolotin, A., Quinquis, B., Sorokin, A., & Ehrlich, S. D. (2005) · Microbiology · doi:10.1099/mic.0.28048-0 · Cited by 1,558
Pourcel, C., Salvignol, G., & Vergnaud, G. (2005) · Microbiology · doi:10.1099/mic.0.27437-0 · Cited by 1,201
CRISPR interference: RNA-directed adaptive immunity in bacteria and archaea
Marraffini, L. A., & Sontheimer, E. J. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2749 · Cited by 919
Short-sequence DNA repeats in prokaryotic genomes
van Belkum, A., Scherer, S., van Alphen, L., & Verbrugh, H. (1998) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.62.2.275-293.1998 · Cited by 737
Metadata
- Authors
- Kamerbeek, J., Schouls, L., Kolk, A., van Agterveld, M., van Soolingen, D., Kuijper, S., Bunschoten, A., Molhuizen, H., Shaw, R., Goyal, M., & van Embden, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1997-04
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 907-914
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2134558351
- Cited by
- 2,858
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.63
- 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: Simultaneous detection and strain differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for diagnosis and epidemiology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.35.4.907-914.1997
- The paper
- Kamerbeek, J., Schouls, L., Kolk, A., van Agterveld, M., van Soolingen, D., Kuijper, S., Bunschoten, A., Molhuizen, H., Shaw, R., Goyal, M., & van Embden, J. (1997). Simultaneous detection and strain differentiation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for diagnosis and epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.35.4.907-914.1997
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.